On Dec 8, 11:57 am, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 12/8/2011 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Dec 8, 9:33 am, Quentin Anciaux<allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an > >> argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on a digital computer) > >> is not compatible with materialism. It shows that to be able to predict > >> your next moment (if computationlism is true) then the primitive material > >> world is of no use (if there is one). > > >> Computationalism can be false, but the argument is not about it being true, > >> it is about considering it true and see the implications. > > Doesn't computationalism already imply independence from materialism > > by definition? > > No. Most people suppose that computation can only be realized by material > processes: > there is no Platonia. Go back and read the arguments with Peter D. Jones. > > Brent
To suppose computation requires a material process would be materialism, wouldn't it? Craig -- 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.
