On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:31, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:13:26 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 02:43, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
How do you turn your desire to move your hand into the neurological
changes which move them? The neurological change is the expression
of what you actually are. These primitive levels of sense are beyond
the question of 'how', they are more in the neighborhood of 'how
else?'
But we cannot be content to let "how else?" stand as mere rhetoric,
can we?
Yes, in this case, we absolutely can. Otherwise you enter into a
regress of having to ask 'how does asking how' work?
If you follow the unavoidably more mathematical thread (which exploits
the link between computationalism and theoretical computer science)
you might eventually understand how a machine can explain its entire
3p functioning (and with chance: at its correct 1p substitution level).
Like a tiny part of arithmetical truth can already explain why normal
universal numbers get in awe in front of the gap between proof and
truth.
We don't have to ask how it works, nor must there be an answer which
could satisfy such an expectation.
But we *can* ask, isn't it? We might never find the correct answer,
but we can find better and better theories.
Advantage of comp? We can easily do science.
The whole idea of 'how' is a cognitive framing of sensible
comparisons. Sure, it seems very important to the intellect, just as
air seems very important to the lungs, but that doesn't mean that
'how' can refer to anything primordial.
Comp is a banal theory, in the sense of being believed (consciously or
not) by many people, mainly materialist . Few computationalists today
are aware that it put theology and physics upside down, yet in a
simple elementary interpretations capable to be understood by any
universal machine.
It's like asking an actor in a movie asking how they got into a
projection on a screen.
Bad analogy, misused. You beg the question. You just can't compare
authentic self-referentially correct machines, amenable to
mathematical studies, with dolls.
Study the movie graph argument, and you will see that you are almost
correct here, but this only by reifying mind and/or matter in a way
where in comp it becomes a problem in math.
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
