On 18 Aug, 00:41, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/8/17 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>:
> > Yep. I have no problem with any of that
> Really?  Let's see then.....
> >> The "paraphrase" condition means, for example, that instead of adopting a 
> >> statement like "unicorns have one horn" as a true statement about reality 
> >> and thus being forced to accept the existence of unicorns, you could 
> >> instead paraphrase this in terms of what images and concepts are in 
> >> people's mind when they use the word "unicorn"; and if you're an 
> >> eliminative materialist who wants to avoid accepting mental images and 
> >> concepts as a basic element of your ontology, it might seem plausible that 
> >> you could *in principle* paraphrase all statements about human concepts 
> >> using statements about physical processes in human brains, although we may 
> >> lack the understanding to do that now.
> I presume that one could substitute 'computation' for 'unicorn' in the
> above passage?  If so, the human concept that it is 'computation' that
> gives rise to consciousness could be "paraphrased using statements
> about physical processes in human brains".  So what may we now suppose
> gives such processes this particular power?  Presumably not their
> 'computational' nature - because now "nous n'avons pas besoin de cette
> hypothèse-là" (which I'm sure you will recall was precisely the point
> I originally made).  

That's completely back to front. Standard computaitonalism
regards computation as a physical process taking place
in brains and computer hardware. It doesn't exist
at the fundamental level like quarks, and it isn't non-existent
like unicorns. It is a higher-level existent, like horses.

Standard computationalism is *not* Bruno's claims about
immaterial self-standing  computations dreaming they are butterflies
whatever. That magnificent edifice is very much of his own
making. He may call it "comp" but don't be fooled.

>It seems to me that what one can recover from
> this is simply the hypothesis that certain brain processes give rise
> to consciousness in virtue of their being precisely the processes that
> they are - no more, no less.
> Am I still missing something?

It's prima facie possible for physicalism to be true
and computationalism false. That is to say that
the class of consciousness-causing processes might
not coincide with any proper subset of the class
of computaitonal processes.
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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to