The term "distributed Ponzi scheme" here is not derogatory -- many currencies are distributed Ponzi schemes, and that seems fine.[1] I use this terminology partly to be funny, and mostly to point out that there's a sort of circular reasoning involved.[2] It is only rational to think that money is valuable because other people expect it to be valuable. There doesn't need to be some root source of the value (EG a government which requires taxes to be paid in the currency).

So why am I claiming that consciousness has this circular quality?

The basic claim here is that there's a cluster of related concepts -- agency, meaning, consciousness, purpose, belief, reference/semantics -- have circular definitions and circular justifications. If one tries to reduce any of these definitions to material/causal notions, I claim, you'll end up sneaking in some other notion from this cluster. This is an OK way for things to be. Definitions and justifications have to be circular at some point, or else terminate in some unexplained things, or else create an infinite chain.

The foundational idea here is the intentional stance: the idea that agency is a useful perspective. There is no fundamental physical structure which [...]

The original text contained 3 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.