David Nyman wrote:
> On 1 Sep, 17:09, Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>   
>>> If you don't like this, you have the option of abandoning CTM and with
>>> it the notion of a virtual ontology.  This is so clear cut that I
>>> would expect that you would welcome the opportunity either to accept
>>> it or refute it with precise counter-argument.  Which is it to be?
>>>       
>> You have slipped into Bruno's habit of confusing CTM with comp.
>>
>> comp=CTM+Platonism.
>>     
>
> I'm afraid that still doesn't work.  I realise it's counter intuitive,
> but this is the point - to recalibrate the intuitions.  'Standard' CTM
> postulates that the mind is a computation implemented by the brain,
> and hence in principle implementable by any physical process capable
> of instantiating the equivalent computation.  Bruno's 'version' starts
> with this postulate and then shows that the first part of the
> hypothesis - i.e. that the mind is computational - is incompatible
> with the second part - i.e. that it is implemented by some
> specifically distinguishable non-computational process. 

That's the step I don't grasp.  I see that the MGA makes it plausible 
that the mind could be a computation divorced from all physical 
processes - but not that it must be.  Maybe you can explain it.

Brent

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to