On Dec 22, 10:35 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Their experiment consisted of people clicking on the image of a word spoken
> aloud.  They found it took people longer for similar sounding words, such
> as when present with an image of candy and candle.  From this, they
> concluded:
> "In thinking of cognition as working as a biological organism does, on the
> other hand, you do not have to be in one state
> *or* another like a computer, but can have values in between -- you can be
> partially in one state *and* another, and then eventually gravitate to a
> unique interpretation, as in finally recognizing a spoken word," Spivey
> said.
> The non-discrete and partial "states" they refer to are high-level mental
> states, such as word identification.  This is of little to no relevance to
> the low level digital states that would form the basis of a mind under
> computationalism.  When considering the highest levels of the brain, it is
> easy to mistake thought processes as continuous,

Why do you consider the different qualities (or multiple senses) we
associate with different levels of reality (or realism) to be a
'mistake'? What is it about the idea of a particulate microcosm which
entitles you to pronounce it as the the authoritative ontology and all
other aspects of the cosmos irrelevant? Do you not see the profoundly
arbitrary epistemological prejudice of such a position?

> just as people often
> consider a quantity of water to be continuous.

You think that it is a mistake to perceive liquids as being
qualitatively different from granular solids?

> Yet, we know
> this appearance is simply the result of the huge numbers involved.

Anytime someone uses the word 'simply' I read it as a huge red flag.
Simply, huh? A trillion little balls of matter 'simply' appear as
clear flowing water? Because of the 'huge numbers' involved? Huge to
who? What does a computer care what size the number is? What possible
reason could there be for a computation to 'appear' as anything other
than exactly what it is?

I know you probably have no interest in my ideas, but in case someone
is, here is a link to my debunking of one of Daniel Dennett's lectures
which relates to this: http://s33light.org/post/14618926856


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to