So, we have the teaser, where's the entree?

Somewhen, I have heard of Godfrey-Smith. The word, Metazoa means little to me. Just as did metadata, when first I heard it. Metazoa sounds metaphysical. Metadata, if I understand it rightly, means lots of data. So, does Metazoa actually mean lots of life forms? It might seem so. The book could be a good one. I may even read it....then, I would at least have a crack at understanding his position(s)/reasoning(s).
My ensuing remarks will likely be too simplistic; too pedestrian for PT's readership. I don't mind. I was out of circulation, just like a lot of others since March of 2020. However, that said, 1. I am a strong proponent of the notion of evolution. There are many of us, since Mr. Darwin. I have never had the privilege of visiting the Galapagos Islands. But, I have seen pictures; heard stories. It appears, with isolation, time has largely stood still there. 2. Mind is a quality of higher-end primates, i.e., humans and their precursive, hominid ancestors. There may be other thinking creatures. Somewhere. Those could even be Metazoans, or for all we know, protozoans.. We just don't know.... 3. It is concievable, I suppose, that in some other somewhere or somewhen, the 'zoans might even be artificial life forms of some sort. I mean, look at what we are doing with artificial intelligence!!! 4. There are other notable points of isolation on this little blue planet. Madagascar comes to mind. And, there are some pretty anomalous things living in Australia. Godfrey-Smith has doubtless visited some of those places himself.
Mr. Godfrey-Smith sounds like someone PT will have back. Maybe. The scroll of repetition seems a good formula for the shows. I further suppose it may depend on what he does; how he thinks; what he writes in the next two to six years?
I do not know if the Metazoan notion will endure. But, it is no worse than Searle's ideas about direction of fit, or Dewey's pronouncement regarding beliefs. Or even Donald Davidson's propositional attitudes Flavors change. Positions come and go. Giants live on. Dodos are extinct. Or, are they?....

Been hearing lots of ideas about mind, matter and such in the past few months. Several thinkers have dangled their toes (and reputations) into the abyss of consciousness. Reading Goff's latest right now. He writes of materialism, dualism and panpsychism, opting for the last as his position of choice---for the moment. Cristoph Koch seems the most avant-garde in his outlook. He asks:: IS Consciousness Everywhere? Being old school, I have to say, no, it is not, IMO. Seems many either wanted to explain consciousness or explain it away---the old joke regarding Dennett's book, some years ago.
现在，我们有一些人将这种虚幻的精神属性归因于电、水、微生物生命以及许多其他或多或少有生命或无生命的物质。我看不见。这种准新时代的现象掩盖了从不断进化的生命中出现的事物的独特性质:意识、自我意识，等等。在我看来，那些关于非生物能够积累思考能力的想法在他们看来是可笑的。我怀疑我是少数这样认为的人之一。如果，就像某些人暗示的那样，意识并不重要，也许我们应该不管它，而不是试图改写现实。希望我们不会放弃这次冒险。对我来说，这似乎太重要了。投入了太多的时间和精力。爱因斯坦从未放弃过相对论。 We should not wimp out on this one either. Maybe it is not what we think it is. That could matter much more.

Sure, consciousness is everywhere. That does not mean it is IN everything.

思考的另一种倾向是:当笛卡尔提出他的“我思故我在”时。他显然有自己的想法。对他这一声明的意图有两种解读。一个人是这样读还是那样读，取决于他认为自己与同时代的人相比有多清醒。几年前，朱利安·杰恩斯(Julian Jaynes)写过关于两院制思维的文章，以及当两院制思维“崩溃”时，意识是如何产生的。我不记得他说过崩溃是什么时候开始的。或结束。在漫长的一生中，我所看到和经历的一切都告诉我，我们仍然常常无法下定决心。这就是他把优柔寡断称为两院制的原因。有些人认为精神分裂症是两院制的产物，我不知道这是对的，还是只是演绎出的某个定理。 I would speculate ( without irrefutable proof) that schitzophrenia has been with us from the beginnings of human consciousness, whenever those were.

无论我们如何看待詹尼斯和他的思想，我认为，我们应该明白，人类的意识是一种礼物，正如埃德尔曼所说:比天空更宽广。这是我们所能想到的任何其他数量或质量属性所无法比拟的。所以，对于泛心论的新支持者，我要说的是，小心你的愿望。供你参考，如果你不知道的话，詹尼斯仍然有一群忠实的追随者。这没有错。

Amen to your statement on truth. Agree. Wholeheartedly. As well as with your hope concerning consciousness. I guess I' ll have to add the Metazoa book to my list. My semi-retired neuroscience prof friend in Ecuador warned me of Australians, citing their criminal lineages. I think he was being facetious. But,, i just don't know.
Best,
HGN.

Metazoa, by Godfrey-Smith: outstanding book. Keen insights.

喜欢这本书。因为它去了哪里。99% ?不。他的方法当然是经过深思熟虑的。我不知道怎么回事，我觉得不可思议。杰恩斯关于两院制(分裂)思想的概念已经够难的了。我想，如果我们要相信他的大部分主张，我们就必须接受关于进化、自然选择等的古典思想。当我读他的书时，我怀疑，以前怀疑的是分裂思想的想法，当它“崩溃”时，我们不知何其地获得了自由。在我看来，我们的思想是分裂的。 It is an occupational hazard. Godfrey-Smith's first love is oceanography. Matters of consciousness are secondary. His priority is clear to me. Anything else is gravy. Well, good or bad, that's how I see it.

适时指出。正如上述2021年7月24日的评论中所提到的，我看到了你们的担忧。我不是山姆·哈里斯的狂热追随者，但他说(或附和)的一些话让我印象深刻……你的头脑就是你的全部。这里和其他地方都有关于自我或自我的概念的讨论。有些人认为自我是一种幻觉。但我不知道这是否正确。只要我们大多数人都有思想，在我看来，我们(大多数)都有自我意识。甚至可以说，自我是一种外在感觉的表现，这种感觉是直觉的，但是虚幻的……即从意识中浮现出来。我没那么夸张，这看起来太简单了，太明显了?它真正的感觉是这样的:自我和思想是我们存在的属性。 Heidegger's dasein or something like that.
构成我们大脑及其功能的东西，是某种类似于机器的东西，或者是这种思维/自我程序的平台....好吧，我只是在做白日梦。但是，戈弗雷-史密斯的头足类动物认为，似乎确实是在不同的层面上。至于他们的头脑是否具有自我意识，就如他们所说，是另一回事了。欢迎来到2022年。愿我们都能看得更清楚。