But "experience" in this sense is not thought, belief, or even feeling, perception, or sensation. It's whatever the supposed difference between a real human being and a fully functional replica of a human being who is "not actually conscious" (a philosophical zombie) is supposed to be. — Pfhorrest

That is a rather strange definition of "experience", as equal to the difference between a real entity and a fictional one.

How does that definition apply to panpsychic tables? Let me guess:

The table's experience is whatever the supposed difference between a real table and a fully functional replica of a table who is "not actually conscious" (a zombie table) is supposed to be.

Now that makes a lot of sense...

Thanks for the cheerleading, Proof. Much appreciated.

I already know what you think, you've made that quite clear already. — Isaac

Alrighty, tell me what you think then. Are you saying that the city of New York has many different names?

You agreed that the word (binomial) 'New York's is a name. There are seven such words on that page so it follows that there are seven names on that page also — Isaac

You are using confused concepts.

"New York" is a place name composed of two words: the word "New" and the word "York".

There are 14 words written on that page, 7 instances of "New" and 7 instances of "York". So there are 7 instances of the name "New York" on the page. Not 7 different names. The city of New York doesn't have one name in Cherif and another in Sans Cherif and another in Gothic and another in Arial. It is one name for one city.

The point is that a single concept such as "New York" can be written several times on a page, in many different ways. Likewise, I suspect that the same concept can be written on neurons in many different ways.

It's the same toponym, composed of two words, and written down in a variety of fonts.

If I call: "Isaac! Isaac!" I haven't called two persons, or two different names, just one name repeated twice.

A toponym.

What are we seeing, when we say that 'this equals that' or 'this means that'? We take for granted this ability, but really it is at the foundation of rationality, it is an awesome power. — Wayfarer

I agree. Any comparison between two objects involves abstraction, ie thinking of pure forms (seeing the form as independent of its material substrate). And we certainly have this capacity to think in abstract forms, such as in mathematics. But from there, it does not follow (I think) that pure abstract forms exist elsewhere than as hypotheses in our mind. (which is a form of existence)

Not sure what difference it makes in practice, to hypothetise the existence of pure forms outside of minds. What do you see as the methodological or conceptual advantage? How does it help you think?

That's the form-substance distinction again, which as stated already is not something anybody is denying: — Pfhorrest

Well then we agree. I see this distinction as fundamentally dualistic. I note that you have not even tried to express the map-territory relation in monist language.

I also note you sport yourself as a panpsychic, which I take as being the dualist view where tables have thoughts (but no sex, for some odd reason).

How many cities are called New York?
— Olivier5

One, I think. — Isaac

One city, one name: New York. This unique name (aka concept) can be written down in an infinite number of different ways.

How many cities are called New York?

So which is more fundamental - neurons or shapes and colors? And are not shapes and colors a type of information? — Harry Hindu

It's a dialogue between mind and matter, a two-way street.

Are you suggesting all seven of those names are the same in every way? I can see some substantial differences. — Isaac

The differences you see are not in the name "New York" itself, which is one name, but in the many different ways to write it down.

Not 'similar enough' but identical.

The same name of the same city.

The same name can be 'materialized' in many different manners, but it's still the same name.

I am questioning the idea that neurons ‘represent’ ideas or that ‘ideas’ are ‘written’ on them. There’s something like a mixed metaphor at work here. ‘ — Wayfarer

Ideas must be written down on something to exist, and to have any effect on things. An idea written nowhere, not even in some dude's memory, is not presently in existence or in any way active in this present world.

If your article is correct, which it probably is (and brain plasticity in general is well established), it follows that ideas exist in some 'mental space', and that they are written down on neurons but not written forever, only they are written and rewritten and rewritten, always slightly differently, and (maybe) our ideas evolve as a result of this constant rewriting.

I can assure you that if you present me with the same smell every day for a month, at first I may think :yum: and at the end :vomit:

An image of our brain:

Huh? Not at all. It's like a poem. Poems exist. They can be copied on many different support, but they are still the same poem. Two copies of the same map are two copies OF THE SAME MAP.

It's no different to saying two people have the same hairstyle. We're not saying they literally have every single hair in the same place, just similar enough for our purposes. — Isaac

Not really. It's the same map IFF it represents the same thing the same way, e.g. at the same scale, projection, and was authored by the same person at the same time.

What is the gender of a table? — Pfhorrest

Neutral in English, feminine in French.

Physical things have different properties than other physical things, but they’re still all physical properties, so pointing out properties that some things have and others don’t doesn’t establish the need for ontologically different kinds of properties. — Pfhorrest

To me, things that are representations of other things (such as maps) have certain properties that relate to their representation aspect, such as scale, which is the ratio (relation) between two things: the size of objects on the map divided by their size in the territory (supposed constant in geographic maps). Things that are NOT representations of other things do not have these properties. What is the materiality of such a thing as the scale of a map?

Beside, a map can be printed on many copies, each of which is a different material thing, but the map itself is one. It's the same map on all copies. A map can be translated into another language, and it will look differently on paper but essentially it remains the same map. So the map is more abstract a form than just the paper form on which it is printed. This abstraction of maps vis-à-vis both the territory and the map's physical support is very difficult to think in a monist logic.

So brains are works in constant progress.

Property
"In logic and philosophy (especially metaphysics), a property is a characteristic of an object; a red object is said to have the property of redness. The property may be considered a form of object in its own right, able to possess other properties."

Let us take a few classic properties of geographic maps such as scale; projection type; purpose of the map, which drives the simplification process as explained; date of issue and author; place or thing represented.

What's the scale of a rabbit?

What's the purpose of a comet?

What's the projection type of a tomato?

What's the date of issue and the author of a stone?

What does a star represent?

One map can be written down on many sheets of paper though. There can be several printed copies of the same book, or map

a map stores information about the territory in a smaller amount of space. — Pfhorrest

Yes, a map is a symbolic and simplified representation of a territory, made for a certain purpose e.g. facilitating the analysis of, or navigation within the territory.

So the map is made for a specific objective, a certain type of use, a teleology. It implies a goal, or several goals.

These goals drive the kind of simplification applied when building the map. The features of the territory that have no import for the goal are not represented. For instance, roads maps -- designed to facilitate road travel and transportation -- typically do not represent vegetation cover or elevation.

Without such simplification the map would be useless, or more precisely, it would have no advantage compared to the territory. It would also be impossible to build.

Finally, the map is static while the territory is dynamic. The map represents a state of the territory at time t. There are exceptions to this, eg chronograms that map space-time. But the chronogram itself is drawn at time t.

In the case of man-made maps or the regular kind, the map is given some stable material support e.g. written down on paper. What is written down is a symbolic, mind-derived map, a mental map. All man-made maps are mental maps, originally.

Therefore the relationship between map and territory is not symetrical. The "roles" cannot be reversed. There is an fundamental epistemic cut between them. If we were to explore a new planet, and found a map carved on some stone of the nearby terrain, we would conclude that a conscious being carved it.

Now, where does that lead us re. Dualism vs. Monism?

The mind itself can be seen as a geographer, drawing upon a collection of mental maps, constantly updated. Since there is no form without matter, even mental maps (mental symbolic representations of the world) must be coded onto some physical support.

It stands to reason that they are written down on neurons.

This is a dualist perspective in the sense that mental events are recorded onto neurons (and from neurons onto paper or other material support) for later recalling into the mental world. It's mind over matter.

Now my challenge to you is to make sense of the map-territory relationship in monist language.

Mass tourism is the plague of beautiful places. But it tends to be confined to specific highlights of the city, typically representing about 10 % of any decently attractive place, what I call le pays des touristes. These places of high tourist density within a city are to be avoided, especially restaurants. The food in restaurants on Piazza Navona or near the Colliseo in Rome is disgusting. Why should they make any effort anyway? Their typical clients are only coming once in any case.

In Venice, it's very hard to find good food, you need to look for it in guides etc. because tourists are nearly everywhere and make up most of the actual population. Still, some popular neighborhoods in Venice still have traditional joints serving predominantly locals. Or you can spend a little more in the restaurant of a luxury hotel, where they have some incentive for serving good quality food.

My point about Italian food is broader, about the culture and economic structures, eg the strength of local farmers markets, short value chains with much produce diversity. The slow food movement is primarily Italian, and it's a whole philosophy of life, an economic and societal vision for a more sustainable agriculture and more equitable food markets.

In the culture, food is everywhere. People speak about it all the time, what produces they brought back from a passagiata, what they cooked yesterday, what their Mama used to cook. Said Mama is frequently checking on her grown up kids diet; some call daily to ask what their adult sons and daughters ate today. You cannot visit a medical doctor without her telling you, usually while writing your drug prescription, what sort of food you should avoid given the ailment you have.

It is different and thus appears chaotic, but an Italian in London may find it rather weird as well... A matter of perspective.

In terms of civilization and sophistication, I tend to agree with Banno that food is a good indicator. By that indicator, my own nation France has gone down the drain, with supermarkets now offering the same no-taste shit everywhere. Italy remains true to its agrarian roots; you can still find amazingly diverse and tasty vegetables and fruits everywhere here.

FORZA ITALIA!
(for this Sunday's euro final :-) )

The motive remains a mystery but the behavior is consistant.

Judge the quality of a civilisation by it's kitchen.
— Banno

Have you been to Italy? ;) — Kenosha Kid

I live in Italy, and can confirm that they are better than the rest of us...

There's a pattern here, isn't there? — Wayfarer

The pattern is willful, petulant misunderstanding.

Then it's not about dualism in the usual philosophical sense under discussion here. — Pfhorrest

There are many different uses of the term.

What is the difference between the map and the territory, in your opinion?

I really can't fathom how you've gleaned from all that the idea the I've condemned Wayfarer's approach as irrational and that's an end to it. — Isaac

Well, don't fathom it then. You can't understand everything, and this is a tangent anyway.

Never mentioned 'fault', — Isaac

You implied that other people's criteria for not responding to your post may not be as rational as your criteria to not respond to their post. I am just amused at your lack of self-awareness.

I don't see how my deciding which posts to respond to by any criteria makes all criteria equally rational. — Isaac

Motive questioning again...

So when people do not respond to your post, they are at fault, but when you don't respond to their posts, you are not at fault at all. Okay.

Okay then, you should be able to understand that such a strategy is perfectly rational. No need for motive questioning.

In other words, you are making a lot of wild guesses about other people's motives.

Do you respond to each and every post, or do you make choices, like Wayfarer?

Assuming there is such an overlap.

"Things worth responding to" is a slightly different concept from "Things I agree with".

Okay then, you made it...

What exact point are you trying to make?

A literal map of a geographic territory and the literal territory itself are both made of the same kind of stuff, and yet there is a difference between them. — Pfhorrest

Indeed, this difference is not about the map being magical or supernatural. So what is this difference about?