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 Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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.