2009/8/18 Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>:
>> I presume that one could substitute 'computation' for 'unicorn' in the above
>> If so, the human concept that it is 'computation' that gives rise to
>> could be "paraphrased using statements about physical processes in human
>> 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
>> made). It seems to me that what one can recover from this is simply the
>> that certain brain processes give rise to consciousness in virtue of their
>> precisely the processes that they are - no more, no less.
> No less, but some more. Compare the concept that chemistry gives rise to
> life. As we
> have come to understand life we see that it has lots of sub-processes and
> there are
> different kinds suited to different environments. We can manipulate some
> aspects of life,
> e.g. genetic engineering. So we did get more than just certain chemical
> processes give
> rise to life in virtue of being the processes they are. The very concept of
> life is now
> seen to be a fuzzy abstraction with no definite meaning.
Yes, I agree completely, in terms of insight and explanation. But
notwithstanding this - in terms of a primary matter ontology - it does
nothing to weaken the 'paraphrase' physical reduction argument with
respect to either 'life' or 'computation' - does it?
>> Am I still missing something?
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