>> > Fair enough, but this is a direct contradiction with the assumption of
>> > computationalism.
>> This is a 'assume comp' playground only? I am up for not assuming
>> anything.....but if computationalism is actually false then it becomes a
>> religion or a club or something.
> Not at all. I don't even subscribe to computationalism most days, but
> it is a powerful metaphor for reasoning. Nevertheless it is important
> to know in any argument if you assume it or not. Otherwise you may
> have the sort of argument:
>   If computationalism is false, then I show that computationalism is
> false.
> which is not especially interesting.

I agree very 'not interesting' ... a bit like saying "assuming comp"
endlessly.....and never being able to give it teeth.

... I am more interested in proving scientists aren't/can't be
zombies....that it seems to also challenge computationalism in a certain
sense... this is a byproduct I can't help, not the central issue.


 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