Bruno writes

> > The accepted *definition* by usage that everyone uses is that it
> > is a *claim* that classical (non-QM) robots could be conscious,
> > that minds could be uploaded into computers. So invent your own
> > term if you don't like how the rest of the world is using
> > of "computationalism".
> I am very glad with the way the rest of the world [uses] the term
> "computationalism", and I use it in the same way [only] abstracted
> from the result I got which shows their contradictions related to
> their wanting computationalism married with materialism.
> Comp is really for Computationalism in a weaker sense than most  
> computationalist use the term,

Yes, so you don't use it in quite the same way.  Your sense is
indeed weaker because, as you say, the other usage seems to have
married materialism to (your weaker) comp.

> I explain all this in a sufficiently precise way as to be refuted.  
> Currently facts are going in the sense that QM confirms comp.

Well, I hope for the best for you.

> I think, Lee, from our last conversation, that you do have understand  
> the first person comp indeterminacy. Could we move on to UDA step 4 ?
> Cf:

Sorry.  I can't promise anything.  We all have to guess how best to
use our time!  :-)   Besides, it seems I have an allergy (as Stephen
Paul King would say) to 1st person explanations of any kind!

> Bruno
> PS Sorry for being slower but I got exams with students and other  
> typical non-holiday stuffs.

Yes. To be expected.  :-)

Reply via email to