On 26 October 2013 12:39, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 4:09 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 26 October 2013 06:23, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical
>> failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not
>> support that it has ever happened. In the mean time, the view that I
>> suggest I think does make more sense and supports our experience fully.
> Could you explain this, about how Comp has failed empirically? Comp
> presupposes that the brain is Turing emulable etc, so if you disagree with
> that then obviously it fails
> It's not at all obvious to me that disagreeing with Craig entails failure.
Sorry, I was posting in haste - I should have added "as far as you're
concerned" or something similar.
I should prob have said something like this.
Comp presupposed XYZ, so obviously if you think XYZ doesn't hold, you will
consider that it doesn't even get off the ground. (But tha's a failure of
the axioms, not an empirical failure.)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.