Le 25-mars-06, à 19:10, 1Z a écrit :

> The
> Searlian point is that there is something about the actual, concrete
> non-abstract existence/occurence of real physical processes that
> explains the hard problems (IOW, "physics" in the sense of "territory",
> not "map").

Searles is notoriously invalid in his conclusions, as I tend to think 
Hofstadter and Dennett Made clear. (And then the UDA is far more 
devastating than their argument).
When you say yes to the doctor you already believed that a piece of the 
(mind) territory is relatively captured by a map. An artificial brain 
is not just a model, in that perspective.

Comp does not explain everything, but it makes many problem at least 
formulable, and then partial solution arise.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to