On 26 December 2011 19:50, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not if the sense of dualism *is* the primitive.

My comments, like the OP, were directed towards the assumptions of the
computational theory of mind, and the various ways in which this is
generally interpreted.  Do bear in mind that consciousness is assumed
(i.e. in the relevant theory) to *supervene on* computation, not to be
identical with it.  Any theory in this domain aspires to give detailed
and falsifiable predictions of how complex systems, defined in terms
of the supervention basis of the theory, emerge, behave, have beliefs,
possess dispositions, make specific claims, about themselves and their
environments, in the precisely the terms they do, and so forth.  This
is of course a monumental endeavour, hardly yet begun, but it is in
the end an empirical one; it can be falsified by intractable
inconsistency with observation, or with the dictates of logic.

It seems to me on the other hand that we simply have no idea how to
give an explanatory account of the direct first-hand phenomena of
consciousness per se.  We don't even know what it would be like to
have such an idea.  I don't believe that it's an attainable goal of
any theory we possess.

David

> On Dec 26, 12:35 pm, David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> But once the central ontological distinction is made between "qua
>> materia" and "qua computatio", a truthful eye cannot avoid seeing that
>> either there are two "primitives" in play here or only one.  If the
>> former, then a dualism of some kind must be contemplated, though a
>> duality in which one pole is placed at an unbridgeable epistemic
>> distance from the other (as Kant shows us).  Should one consequently
>> lean towards the latter option as more parsimonious, one of the pair
>> of ontological primitives must be dispensed with - i.e. redefined in
>> terms of the other.
>
> Not if the sense of dualism *is* the primitive. A single continuum
> which is ontologically perpendicular to itself in one sense,
> unambiguously unified in another, and explicated as a spectrum of
> combinatorial sense channels at every point in between. It's the
> possibility of topological symmetry and algebraic-sequential
> progression that gives rise to realism. Each primitive can be
> redefined in terms of the other figuratively but not literally.
> Computation is not realism. It is an analytical extraction through
> which our intellectual sense can model many common exterior behaviors
> and experiences, but I think it is not a primitive and has no causal
> efficacy independent of a physical mechanism. Computationalism is
> seductive as a primitive because it's purpose is to transparently
> model universality and in so doing becomes conflated with universality
> in our minds, but this equivalence is figurative, not literal.
>
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to