Le 09-avr.-07, à 16:40, John M a écrit :

> Stathis,
> I am weary about the view of 'computationalism' based on that emryonic 
> binaryly digital toy we used yesterday. I let my tech.  immagination 
> wander and think about analog computers dealing in meanings and 
> functions rather than bits 0 or 1.

But there is no universal analog computers. Analog machines can be made 
universal by making them able to compute the "sinus" function, but this 
is a way to implement a digital universal machine in an analog one.
And then why would real "analog machine" be more able able to deal with 
meaning and functions?

> In such sense
> SUCH 'physical 'COMPUTER' will run a conscious program,

Why? You talk like if it was obvious that consciousness is related with 
actual third person real numbers (analog object)? At least comp 
explains completely why consciousness is related to real numbers, but 
only from the first person perspective. This is coherent with the fact 
that consciousness is a first person notion.

> not a mechanisedly 'consciousified' digital program.

John, with all my friendly respect, I think you miss the impact of 
Godel's theorem. Somehow, we know (provably so with the comp 
assumption) that we don't know what numbers or machines are capable of.

But ok, you are just arguing for the non-comp assumption. I have 
nothing against it, unless you pretend that the mind-body problem would 
be easier to solve in such frame. it is actually not the case. Adding 
third person infinities makes things more complex, and in general such 
moves are used to hide the problem instead of solving it or even just 
better formulating it.

> If called 'computer' at all, it is a tool. Call it 'god' and you are 
> out.
> *
> I cannot blame Peter to be stubborn in "that's we have, (rather: see), 
> that's we love" pragmatism. I am irresponsible enough to allow 
> speculative conditional fantasy.

That's my definition of science. Speculative conditional fantasy. Even 
Grand Mother physics, with theories like "the sun will rise tomorrow", 
become scientific only when grandmother adds "let's hope".

All theories are hypothetical, even the implicit theories our brain 
supports since million years. Of course those theories are more 
difficult to put in doubt. But science appears when people have been 
able to take distance with such "obvious truth", like the primacy of 
the material world.

> Of course only into my 'narrative'. But IMO advancement needs a free 
> unrestricted mind and includes fantastic ideas.

OK. But not if those fantastic ideas are used to burry problems instead 
of formulating them or solving them. It could perhaps be arguable that 
fantastic ideas like "God" or its dual idea "Matter" have been used 
since a long time to bury the initial deep questioning.

> Right or wrong. And of course I am not certain myself.

That is the best I wish you ...



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