On 07 Dec 2013, at 19:26, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Materialistic theories of consciousness can only describe experience, not deal with experience itself.

Consciousness theories are a dime a dozen and materialistic theories explain consciousness every bit as well as non-materialist theories.

Materialist theories use an identity thesis which is non intelligible with the computationalist theory of mind. In fact, materiaslist use mechanism in a non consistent way. Also, what is matter? A primitive in the assumption? A convenient fiction? Matter has its hard problem of its own, and non materialist theories suggests that the illusion of matter can have a rational explanation in term of computations coherence.



And in the vastly more difficult matter of coming up with intelligence

Intelligence is very simple. Competence is hard, and has a negative feedback on intelligence (as illustrated by all civilisations, I think).

A machine is intelligent if that machine is not stupid.

And there are two kind of stupid machines:
- those which believe/assert that they are intelligent,
- those which believe/assert that they are stupid.

Exercice: show that Dt satisfy this for correct (or just consistent actually) machine.






theories materialists are far better and keep getting better every year, while non-materialist try to peddle the exact same useless religious crap they have for millennium. So why do otherwise smart people believe in this non-materialist claptrap?

My parents were atheists, and I have never bought the (weak) materialist crap. Computationalism explains well why such matter is more plausibly a myth than a fundamental fact.



One reason and one reason only, their mommy and daddy told them it was true when they were still pooping in their pants.

You might believe in primitive matter for similar reason. Nobody has ever seen that, it explains nothing about intelligence, consciousness and also on the matter appearance. Matter is a failed hypothesis, I would say. I am agnostic, but with comp, I explain that "Matter" makes no sense at all. It is the ether that we don't need in any comp TOE (and weak-comp TOE).

Matter as primitive is a natural extrapolation from the observation, but which either eliminates the person and consciousness since 1500 years, or lead to absurd unintelligible dualist theories of mind/matter.

Bruno






  John K Clark



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to