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
> there is no Platonia. Go back and read the arguments with Peter D. Jones.
To suppose computation requires a material process would be
materialism, wouldn't it?
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