> On Apr 24, 3:14 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Your arguments are compelling and logical, you have put a lot of doubt
>> in my mind about computationalism.
> It sounds like you are following the same path as I did on all of
> So it makes sense to start with the idea of physicalism and the idea
> that the mind is like a very complex computer, since this explains
> third person observations of human behavior and ability very well I
> BUT, then the question of first person subjective consciousness
> arises. Where does that fit in with physicalism? So the next step is
> to expand to physicalism + full computationalism, where the
> computational activities of the brain also explain consciousness, in
> addition to behavior and ability.
It's really cool to see folks exploring where I have been and seeing the
same problems. I might be able to shed a little light on a productive
'next step' for exploration:
Try understanding the difference between a natural world which IS
literally a mathematics, not a natural world described BY a mathematics.
Note that a Turing machine is an instrument of a 'BY' computationalism,
not the natural computation that I am speaking of. If you can get your
head around this, then the answers (to a first person perspective) can
be found. Stop thinking 'computation OF' and start thinking 'natural
computation that IS'. Also very useful is the idea of using the
explanation of a capacity to do science (grounded in a first person
experience that is, in context, literally scientific observation) ...
this is a very testable behaviour and represents the last thing
physicists seem to want to explain: /themselves/. A green field in which
it is obvious that cognition is most definitely not computation in the
'computation BY' sense.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at