On 14 Oct 2015, at 00:46, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 10/13/2015 3:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 13 October 2015 at 21:43, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/10/2015 7:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 13 October 2015 at 11:48, Bruce Kellett <[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.
Yes. And then people doing so must show the flaw. Clark tried, but
fails. His many arguments just introduce an ambiguity on the pronouns
by omitting the 1p / 3p distinction.
Bruno
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.
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.
