On 14 Oct 2014, at 13:54, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 October 2014 15:43, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, some people might say "just information processing", and that
is like using some god to *explain* everything, instead of trying to
formulate the problem.
This is doubly so in the use of the term information, which is a
word which almost automatically leads to a confusion between the
first person notion (like in: "I listen to the information on the
radio and was shocked") and the third person notion (like in Shannon
theory, or Quantum information theory, etc.
I agree. He says at one point "When we introspect and seem to find
that ghostly thing -- awareness, consciousness, the way green looks
or pain feels -- our cognitive machinery is accessing internal models
and those models are providing information that is wrong." Note that
he can't avoid saying "when WE introspect" and "OUR cognitive
machinery". What is taken for granted here is *particularity*. He
can't help resorting to a tacit "god's-eye" perspective that is
used, without justification, to pick out whatever is under
discussion and ascribe it to "we" and "our".
He lacks a 3p and 1p self-reference theory. He is unaware that simple
believer-arithmetic machines have already one, and can distinguish
syntactical machine/theories/numbers from the non nameable global
truth encompassing them.
He might, I suppose, wish to protest that this is just "folk
language" and that there is, in the ultimate analysis, no "picking
out" of the first-person "we" and "our". This is perhaps what is
behind the attempt to deploy "illusion" as a term-of-art.
Unfortunately it is merely a term-of-obfuscation, as it unable to
conceal the frank contradiction inherent in ascribing a perceptual
position to something you claim does not exist.
Indeed. if a computationalist (who got the consequence) was adopting
his philosophy, he would say that there is no matter, and negate that
we have to explain it, or believe in anything related to it.
But this does not follow. Reducing the ontology does not make
disappear the epistemology.A good thing because with computationalism,
I argue that both matter and the minds are epistemological.
Consciousness is in the non justifiable part of the epistemological.
May be those people have a left brain which does not listen to the
right brain, they shut down the corpus callosum, or censure the
message. (assuming the left brain/right brain is mirrored in the []p
and []p & p points of view).
Bruno
David
--
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.
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/d/optout.
