On 07 Sep 2005, at 06:44, Lee Corbin wrote:



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.





In a weaker way! It is ALWAYS a progress when you get results from a weaker hypothesis. It means the theorems are true for all stronger theories.





Your sense is
indeed weaker because, as you say, the other usage seems to have
married materialism to (your weaker) comp.


The "other" usage has just inherited 2300 years of a caricature of Aristotle's theory of mind and nature.






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.


If only you looked at what has already been done.






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: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004Slide.pdf


Sorry.  I can't promise anything.  We all have to guess how best to
use our time!  :-)


You believe in comp. You don't believe in a theorem deduced from comp. So you guess (non constructively!) that there is an error in the proof. Why don't you want to help me to catch the error you seem so sure there is.



Besides, it seems I have an allergy (as Stephen
Paul King would say) to 1st person explanations of any kind!


I think I already told you I have the same allergy.
I think you are confusing 1st person explanations, which I agree are non scientific, with third person explanations in fields, like cognitive science, which address, as subject matter (no pun!), the notion of 1st person manifestations.



Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



Reply via email to