On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:35 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Craig, >> >> You still talk like if I pretended that computationalism is true. I don't >> do that, ever. >> But you *do* pretend that computationalism is false, and I am waiting for >> an argument. I refuted already your basic argument, which mainly assert >> that it is obvious, but this is true already for the machine's first person >> point of view, and so cannot work as a valid refutation of comp. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> > Bruno, Are you saying that comp is false for the machine's 1p POV? I find > your paragraph rather confusing. > Richard > Not in some normative sense that you could be implying; as in "comp is wrong/bad to believe for machine". For sufficiently rich machine, from their 1p point of view, comp entails set of 1p beliefs so sophisticated, that it would be consistent for such machine to assert things like: "What me? A mere machine? No way, I'm much more high level/smarter/complex than that. Therefore comp must be false." - Which ISTM is what Craig keeps asserting, in authoritative sense going even much further: insisting that we believe him, without going non-comp in some 3p verifiable way. Don't know if I grasp your understanding/question though. PGC -- 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/d/optout.
