On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb <[email protected]> Computationalism is an extraordinary claim.
The claim that what goes on inside brains is at some level Turing-emulable seems not necessarily extraordinary - or do you think it is? It seems like a fairly standard assumption by many scientists and philosophers, but I can believe it's wrong - but some reason to do so would be nice rather, than just a "statement from authority". as given here. (If the conclusions Bruno has drawn from that assumption appear extraordinary those aren't "claims", just deductions which can presumably be shown to be wrong through the application of logic, assuming they are ub fact wrong. He's provided a detailed description of his assumptions and deductions, so go to it.) > That some things may happen at random isn't. > Now that *is* an extraordinary claim, in my opinion. What would be a suitable underlying means by which the universe might operate, that it makes things happen at random? I can imagine things that might appear random to us, but are actually the result of deterministic forces operating on scales we can't probe - e.g. string vibrations. But genuinely random - that seems to me to require extraordinary evidence. So far we only have evidence for "apparently random" as far as I know. Some backup for the above two extraordinary claims would be welcome. (1) that brains aren't Turing emulable at any level (2) that there is a mechanism by which the universe might generate truly, rather than apparently random events. -- 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.
