On 13/10/2015 9:54 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-10-13 12:43 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:On 13/10/2015 7:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:On 13 October 2015 at 11:48, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 13/10/2015 9:46 am, Jason Resch wrote: The double-slit experiment is evidence of platonic computation being responsible for our consciousness, along with many other properties seen in physics. Come again? How on earth do you make that out? The double slit experiment is evidence for quantum superpositions of waves and/or particles. Nothing to do with consciousness. As for the rest of physics?????? The theory has survived numerous tests, without being disproven, which is all we can hope for as evidence for any theory. Quantum mechanics is a well-tested theory. Computationalism is not. Computationalism can't even get the basic physics right, much less explain how the universe came to exist long before consciousness emerged. Computationalism is the theory that a computer could simulate not only the brain's behaviour, but also consciousness. It is possible that the brain utilises non-computable physics, in which case computationalism would be false. Is that what you believe?You present a false dichotomy. The brain might well be Turing emulable, and computationalism false. That would be the case if matter is primary and arithmetic merely a formal game.Then it's not computationalism... but materialism, as computation is not a material notion...
I did say that computationalism could be false....
You have to say then that computation is just an abstract representation of the real thing (aka matter doing thing looking at if it was a computation)... then you is not "just" a computation... "you" is matter which behaves like a computation.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Matter as primary entity is thus needed... and the brain would not be turing emulable per se.
That does not follow.
Also I wonder how you could justify with such theory the equivalence between two computations... if not by using abstract computation theory to justify it...
Two computations are equivalent if they give the same answers. 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.
