On 10 Aug 2009, at 11:04, 1Z wrote (to Colin Hales): >> > > I am not sure what you are saying here. Computationalism is > generally taken to be a claim about the mind, and is quite a > respectable thesis
I agree > > Bruno's "comp" is something rather different and idiosyncratic You keep saying this. This is a lie. "comp" is the usual thesis in cognitive science. Except much weaker in the sense that comp, as I defined it, entails all the form of comp in the cognitive science literature (minus the *implicit* naturalist assumption). Naturalist or weak materialist forms of comp are shown epistemological contradictory, but this is the theorem, not the theory. Or I am wrong? Then please comment my last answer to you. Repeating falsities does not help anybody, and create confusions. If we disagree, let us find on what we disagree. I have explained already that there is no implicit assumption of platonism. Just an explicit assumption that we can apply classical logic in the realm of numbers. If you disagree on the fact that usual comp implies immateriality; just say that you don't understand UDA, or that you have an objection in UDA, and say which one. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
