On 10/13/2015 3:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 13 October 2015 at 21:43, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: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.Standard computationalism does not say anything about whether matter is primary or not. It says that you can make a computer (or a robot) that thinks and acts like a human. Those opposed to computationalism disagree. They believe either that is not possible to make a computer that behaves like a human because there is non-computable physics in the brain (eg. Roger Penrose), or that it is possible to make a computer that behaves like a human but not one that thinks like a human (eg. John Searle).
But the problem with what you say is that on this list "computationalism" tends to mean much more than, "you can make a computer (or a robot) that thinks and acts like a human". Bruno claims to have proven that your simple statement logically entails that all of physics and consciousness. But that is not so generally accepted and so when someone "reject computationalism" here, it may be they are just rejecting the inferences Bruno claims it entails.
Brent -- 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.
