Le Vendredi 24 Novembre 2006 05:48, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit :
> >> > 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.
I don't see how the idea of zombies could challenge computationalism... Zombie
is an argument against dualism... in other way it is the ability to construct
a functionnal identical being as a conscious one yet the zombie is not
conscious. Computationalism does not predict zombie simply because
computationalism is one way to explain consciousness.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at