Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:PGC wrote: Why or how is anybody arguing that problem is generated or solved by "how somebody feels about it"? It's via contradiction/standard reductio: assume conclusion false and negation to be true, and from this we derive contradiction. If latter is the case, conclusion must be true. Only two things are required: law of excluded middle and if statement implies something false, it must be false. PGC Where is the contradiction? Of what? MGA? I just described the mechanism, far from "just feelings".I assumed you had read at least a paper: incompatibility of physical supervenience with comp. PGC
Yes, physical supervenience is incompatible with computationalism. But it remains to be proved that physical supervenience is false and comp is true. That what what I took the MGA to be attempting to do. If that is what it is about, then it fails because it assumes what is to be proven.
Bruno said: "if we attribute it to the physical activity token: we get the absurd conclusion: playing records and real-time consciousness supervene on a static film, etc."
That is the invalid argument from incredulity. Bruce -- 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.
