Philosophical Speculations

Another fascinating discussion hosted by Curt Jaimungal delving into the mind/matter meld ...

Interesting, though mostly from the physicalist perspective. His ideas of melding parts seem to speak to the subject combination problem and at one point he suggested that metal could theoretically be alive - but that wasn't pursued.

Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:06 pm Interesting, though mostly from the physicalist perspective. His ideas of melding parts seem to speak to the subject combination problem and at one point he suggested that metal could theoretically be alive - but that wasn't pursued.

Yeah, I'd say physicalist verging on panpsychist. I was kinda hoping CJ would somehow work BK into the mix, but I doubt that it would've got much traction anyway, unless ML is familiar with BK and idealism in general. Interesting that Rupert Sheldrake submitted a question to the Q&A portion. But it does raise some serious questions about the correlation between corporeality and consciousness, when they are now discovering (discussed at about the 39 minute mark) that skin cells taken from a frog embryo when placed in a life-supporting medium, seem to 'forget' that they are skin cells, and congregate and metamorphose into a novel creature that uses cilia appendages to propel its body through mazes, with all the signs of having conscious agency, while not relying on metabolism. What's up with that?! Alas, these kind of questions really need to be put to Bernardo, if we're to ever get his take on the implications for his model.

But it does raise some serious questions about the correlation between corporeality and consciousness, when they are now discovering (discussed at about the 39 minute mark) that skin cells taken from a frog embryo when placed in a life-supporting medium, seem to 'forget' that they are skin cells, and congregate and metamorphose into a novel creature that uses cilia appendages to propel its body through mazes

If it's the representation of a skin cell when it's on the frog, it's the representation of something else when it's not on the frog - a memory of something more primitive on the evolutionary scale, I'd guess.

Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:35 pm If it's the representation of a skin cell when it's on the frog, it's the representation of something else when it's not on the frog - a memory of something more primitive on the evolutionary scale, I'd guess.

Well I'm thinking more about the implications for a metabolizing organism, as a whole, being representative of the dissociation process, such that there's something it feels like to be that organsim, even if only an amoeba. If one's arm is removed, it surely can't be said to be, on its own, still representative of a dissociation process—albeit the phenomenon of phantom limb pain remains a conundrum. So when some skins cells are removed from a frog, and despite the 'combination problem' combine to metamorphose into what is to all appearances a novel organism, yet without metabolism, is that then another representation of a dissociation process, or just some sort of biological bot— and representative of what?

a novel organism, yet without metabolism

How can it be without metabolism? Surely, if there's a nutrient medium, it's absorbing nutrients. If there's not, it's toast.

Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:38 pm

a novel organism, yet without metabolism

How can it be without metabolism? Surely, if there's a nutrient medium, it's absorbing nutrients. If there's not, it's toast.

There's no mention in ML's description of metabolism going on, but I'll have to delve deeper in whatever media is available to try to clarify that. Whatever medium the cells were placed in would clearly have to be non-toxic to the cells, but how much nutritive value it might have, I've no idea.