On 12/8/2011 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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?
Sure, but you could still suppose that consciousness is the result of certain computations
and so say yes to the doctor.
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.
