2008/12/7 Kory Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I see what you mean. But I'm uncomfortable with (what I perceive as)
> the resulting vagueness in the platonic view of consciousness. You've
> indicated that you think of consciousness as fundamentally
> computational and Platonic - that's it's an essential side-effect of
> platonic computations, as addition is the essential side-effect of the
> sum of two-numbers. But if we don't have a clear conception of
> "platonic computations", do we even really know what we're talking
> about? I'm worried, essentially, that the move to Platonia "solves"
> the problems created by these thought experiments only by creating a
> view of consciousness that's too vague to allow such problems to arise.

I agree that it's vague, but any way you look at it consciousness is
vague, slippery and elusive. This is probably why philosophers and
scientists who like to be clear about things have sometimes come to
the conclusion that consciousness is not real at all: the only real
thing is intelligence, which manifests as intelligent behaviour. This
idea steers a course between Scylla (paradoxes) and Charybdis
(vagueness and mysticism) and is attractive... as long as you avoid

Stathis Papaioannou

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 

Reply via email to