On 02 Sep 2008, at 03:56, Colin Hales wrote:
> Computationalism is FALSE in the sense of 'not useful', not false in
> the sense of 'wrong'.
Remember that if we are machine then we cannot *know* (correctly
justify) which machine we are. We can do bets.
But comp entails many indirect propositions about the observable
realm, so comp can be refuted, and is "scientific" in Popper sense.
Up to now, the observation of nature (quantum physics notably)
confirms the comp hyp.
Also, to negate comp you have to put actual infinities and/or 3-
indeterminacy in nature. Where?
> Computationalism is FALSE in the sense that it cannot be used to
> construct a scientist.
That we cannot build constructively a scientist is correct. But it is
then very misleading to use the word "false". Also, it is not because
we cannot built constructively a scientist that we can infer that we
are unable to isolate one, or to copy one, (and then: without
constructively proving that we have done so). We just cannot know who
By using "false" here you change the usual meaning of the word, and it
could lead to add misunderstandings in a field where there are already
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at