let me keep only your reply-part and ask my question(s):
----- Original Message -----
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?
On 3/25/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SKIP - Sorry, Mark, this goes to Stathis, who wrote:
Standard computationalism is just the theory that your brain could be
replaced with an appropriately configured digital computer and you would not
only act the same, you would also feel the same. - *
I am not implying that you accept it, just scribble down my remarks to the
topic - in accordance maybe with your opinion.
1. Standard? meaning our embryonic-level (first model) 0-1 binary digital
mechanism? Do we really believe that our "human complexity" is that simplistic
and ends at the inner surface of our skull? Even there (locally restricted) we
know only a bit of what our "thinking mind" is capable of/doing. Some of these
features are reproduced into binary digital churnings and that is the standard.
A robot of limited capabilities (maybe if in certain aspects even exceeding the
limits of our human activity details).
I think 'comp' as Bruno uses the word and compares it to a L-machine is not
like such 'standard': it may be "analogous", or, if digital: of unlimited
variance (infinitary, not only binary), and not even simulable in our today's
2. Replaced? meaning one takes out that goo of neurons, proteins and other
tissue-stuff with its blood suply and replace the cavity (no matter how bigger
or smaller) by a (watch it): *digital* computer, "appropriately configured" and
electric flow in it. For the quale-details see the par #1.
3. "you" - and who should that be? can we separate our living
brain (I mean with all its functionality) from 'YOU', the self, the person,
or call it the simulacron of yourself? What's left? Is there "me" and "my
brain"? As I like to call it: the brain is the 'tool' of my mind, mind is
pretty unidentified, but - is close to my-self, some call it life, some
consciousness, - those items we like to argue about because none of us knows
what we are talking about (some DO THINK they know, but only something and for
4. "feel" ----????---- who/what? the transistors?
(Let me repeat: I am not talking about Transistor Stathis).
Bruno goes on to show that this entails there is no separate physical reality
by means of the UDA, but we can still talk about computationalism - the
predominant theory in cognitive science - without discussing the UDA. And in
any case, the ideas Brent and I have been discussing are still relevant if
computationalism is wrong and (again a separate matter) there is only one
Yes, "we today" KNOW about only 1 universe. But we believe in a physical
reality what we 'feel', 'live it' and hold as our 'truth' as well. Even those
'more advanced' minds saying they don't believe in it, cry out (OMIGOD!) when
"Dr. Johnson's stone" hurts their toe in the shoe.
I like to draw comparisons between "what we know today" and what we knew
1000, 3000, or 5000 years ago and ask: what will we 'know' just 500 years ahead
in the future by a continuing epistemic enrichment? (If humanity survives that
Please, readers, just list the answers alphabetically.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/733 - Release Date: 3/25/2007
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