Well, I’m definitely not a pancomputationalist (earlier in the piece there are a couple quotes from Mike Johnson discussing how there is no objective way of specifying what computations are happening in a volume of spacetime) and brain-as-an-antenna-for-consciousness theories make me cringe, so...
At the start of the electromagnetic field theory explainer post, I use the line, consciousness is identical with certain spatiotemporal patterns in the electromagnetic field. I think this is about as concisely as I can express it. See also the caveat:
Electromagnetic field theories claim that subjective experience is one and the same with the electromagnetic field – but why the electromagnetic field in particular? More precisely, the claim is that panpsychism is true and the entire universe and all its physical fields are conscious – but it’s the electromagnetic field which has all the interesting behaviour going on at the scales that we care about.
I should be extra clear that I do not wish to reify any unfortunate dualisms. I ultimately do not see physics and qualia as separate from one another – my true stance is closest to dual-aspect monism.
And also see this comment for why I am discussing panpsychism at all, in the first place:
The non-panpsychist accounts people were promoting on Twitter were arbitrary and opinionated and making people mad, and my panpsychist account is illustrating what a less opinionated alternative might look like.
Well, I’m definitely not a pancomputationalist (earlier in the piece there are a couple quotes from Mike Johnson discussing how there is no objective way of specifying what computations are happening in a volume of spacetime) and brain-as-an-antenna-for-consciousness theories make me cringe, so...
At the start of the electromagnetic field theory explainer post, I use the line, consciousness is identical with certain spatiotemporal patterns in the electromagnetic field. I think this is about as concisely as I can express it. See also the caveat:
I should be extra clear that I do not wish to reify any unfortunate dualisms. I ultimately do not see physics and qualia as separate from one another – my true stance is closest to dual-aspect monism.
Perhaps the fact we are discussing translation functions from physics to qualia does unfortunately reify such a dualism. Rather, I should express such translation functions as relating the experience of a structure from the outside to the experience of a structure from the inside.
And also see this comment for why I am discussing panpsychism at all, in the first place: