On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:56:37 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, March 24, 2014 9:15:04 PM UTC, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: >> >> He gives six evidences. >> >> First, he falls for quantum pseudoscience. >> Second, he says that he personally failed to make AI when he tried and >> incorrectly implies that difficulty means impossibility. >> Third, he brings up the hard problem and uses it to make an argument from >> ignorance. >> Fourth, he says he doesn't know how to define what he means by >> consciousness, and then makes another argument from ignorance. >> Fifth, he repeats the mistaken Berkeley's Master argument. >> Sixth, he falls for NDE pseudoscience. >> >> Unconvincing. >> l >> > > I would agree with a substantial amount of that or else otherwise that > he's wrong. But to be fair at minimum substance of having no more than a > hunch, he's really up against the odds, because he has to swim against the > current of a stream dominated by objects originally conjectured to be > in accordance with what has been a long standing general > explanation. Likewise all on-going refinements arising out of the same > inbuilt utility for reinforcing that same long standing explanation. All > six objects you list depend for their on going selection for extension on > their fitness for purpose, manifested as ongoing positive reinforcement. > > Seen that way it's less of a surprise he would have to interpret at least > one, probably all, at least a little bit different. Nor hardly a surprise > that all such doors have been slammed shut long since. Maybe so long since > that the labels - the names given such as you list, are so familiar to > proponents, and so agreed with, with so little or even nothing between any > two proponents. Hence so long since the last major revisionist, or > potentially so, dynamism graced the innards, the home turf, the place where > only proponents go. > > Is any of this a problem, or is it no different than science as usual? > Well, the thing is, this sort of reinforcement and undisturbed unanimity > has normally settled onto theoretical domains that had a heyday once, in > which that theoretical accomplishment told the world things about the > nature of reality, that hadn't been anticipated and where the world could > go and look to find it, typically in a place the world had never thought to > look. Not only that, but even a large section of the enablers - whether > technology or analytical devices, that going to look entailed use of. Not > only that, but devices and models, and technologies, and even new and > independent sciences, were typically independent in fundamental ways, of > that theory, such that the potential for duplicate components in both, > producing convergent results was minimized. > # > > I think this points to a legitimate concern as to the health of your > preferred theory. It has basically produced approximately nothing in more > than 50 years. And this despite multiple revolutions in the background > enabling technologies, not least computing itself, that all takent > together, should have been enough to heave your theory over any holding > back hurdles. But remarkably,, any reasonable process of controlling for > progress arising from revolutions in the background enabliers, the > approximate give back of your theory is nothing. > > I think just for that alone, a little less stridency, and a large helping > of humbleness and innards generated uncertainty and scepticism - even if > only playing devils advocate, because that's fine. So long as it's hardball > it's fine. And maybe not so much reeling off 6 longstanding - philosophy > standard - refutations of interpretive variations, almost in glib > fashion, when someone is struggling upstream with a hunch, that on the > face of things, looks at leat partially...actualluy pretty reasonable. > Beggars can't choosers domain of computationism,. Take a closer look at the > upstream swimmers and their hunches. if you can't produce your own from > within, that lead to things moving forward again. Welcome the swimmers. > that being said the guy talks a lot of shit, so perhaps look there least, or last t
> > On Monday, March 24, 2014 3:36:43 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg > >> >>> http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/consciousness-is-not-a-computation-2 >>> >> -- 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/d/optout.
