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 
  Stathis Papaioannou-*

  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.


  <John Mikes>




  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 
11:07 AM

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

Reply via email to