Ulla Mattfolk Hi Ulla, In fact Lorraine is confused.
She claims “The most primitive consciousness is the means by which the most primitive matter knows about itself.”
This is pure assertion,there is no argument, mechanism, observational evidence, or accepted theory that supports matter knows about itself.
In physics,matter does not have ‘knowledge’, it has states described by fields, particles, wavefunctions, or configuration variables. Knowledge is an informational,computational property requiring memory, representation, updating, etc.
Calling matter’s state a “symbolic representation” or “knowledge” is simply anthropomorphism, not physics. She confounds wontology what exists and what it is without real definition.
She can tell all what she wants with the numbers, categories, relationships, she has no physical structure and what she asserts is not how we must take the problem of consciousness.In neurosciences, cognitive science,physics, philosophy, we need structures and concrete definitions , she cannot equate consciousness with an internal informational state without a specific structures biological, computational,physical process. What Lorraine asserts is just her personal metaphysical idea , it is not valide physically and philosophically due to conusions about the representation o this said consciousness.
Her error is mainly about the fact to assert that existence of numbers, categories, relationships imply knowledge of their existence, so consciousness for her in this logic is necessary.She makes a category error . Indeed numbers, categories, and relationships are descriptive tools of models, not physical objects that require knowledge to exist. Physics describes the world with math; math doesn’t require a conscious observer to exist. This is important like error in her reasoning. She jumps from relational states of physics to a conclusion telling so that consciousness exists at the foundamental level, it is total non sense. The physical structures do not know their own stetes, they are in these states, it is diferent.
So her argument is simply circular and personal. She asserts matter must know itself, knowledge requires consciousness, so matter has consciousness, it is non sense because it is a justification without proof and so it is circular. The self interaction is not the same than the self knowledge. An electron does not know nothing about how it must act.
A state evolution for example is different than an awareness of the evolution.
The thinkers attempt to explain consciousness in biology, physics or computations, but Lorraine asserts that because the world is mathematical, so the consciousness must exist at a fundamental level, It is non sense , it is like a panpsychism without justifications or physical definitions. She asserts intuitions instead of proofs.
The problem is how she makes the catefories and how she makes the analogies. She asserts simply assumptions.
Lorraine has never provided us operational definitions , so no real testable , measurable definitions in her cicular reasoning. Her statements are not operationalizable and cannot be evaluated scientifically. This means they are metaphysical opinions, not physical theories. She confound ontology and epistemology. In telling this panpsychic assertion about the matter knows itself , it is a kind of religious assertion without real explaination how the consciousness or psychology emerges from the physical structures. She is persuaded and like to compete , but that will not change that she is not relevant, she can want to have the last words, that will not change that she is full of non sense generally and physically. Her view is limited and personal , it is a kind of idiosyncratic definition of this consciousness in asserting that this consciousness is as any information about state,it is non sense and non standard. There no mechanism,no testable or measurable systems , the category errors are foundamental in her reasoning, she cannot treat mathematical description as conscious experiences. The circular reasonings so appear and so she asserts and that shows us that she misunderstands the physics and how the matter has states. She tells so a load of nonsense and confounds ontology and epistemology and makes category errors and asserts assumptions to to the fact she is persuaded about her intuitions. She is going probably in the next step to assert that the knowledge is a property of electrons or quarks, it is non sense.
