Colin, I believe you did not reply to my points? Based on your definition of computationalism, it appears that my criticism of your argument does apply after all. To restate:
Your argument appears to assume computationalism. Here is a numbered restatement: 1. We have a visual experience of the world. 2. Science says that the information from the retina is insufficient to compute one. 3. Therefore, we must get more information. 4. The only possible sources are material and spatial. 5. Material is already known to be insufficient, therefore we must also get spatial info. Computationalism is assumed to get from #2 to #3. If we do not assume computationalism, then the argument would look more like this: 1. We have a visual experience of the world. 2. Science says that the information from the retina is insufficient to compute one. 3. Therefore, our visual experience is not computed. This is obviously unsatisfying because it doesn't say where the visual scene comes from; answers range from prescience to quantum hypercomputation, but that does not seem important to the current issue. --Abram ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
