On 24/04/2017 6:07 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Ok, so you are rejecting computationalism. Computationalism is the
hypothesis that our mind supervenes on computations (sorry Bruno, it's
easier to write for the purpose of this discussion :). You are
declaring that mind supervene on the physical brain.
That is not it at all. We've clarified with Bruno many times that
computational supervenience is compatible with physical
supervenience. Which is just as well, as otherwise it would be so much
the worse for computationalism.
I have no doubt that the brain is a physical computer, and that
computations performed by the brain are no different from any other
computations.
We are discussing physicalism and computationalism, and if they are
compatible or not, correct?
Bruce repeatedly makes variation of the claim: "look, the brain is
physical and the brain generates consciousness, these are the facts".
This is what I am replying to. It's an argument from authority that
leaves no space for debate or reasoning.
First, it is not an argument from authority, it is an argument made on
the basis of all the available evidence -- consciousness supervenes on
the physical brain.
Second. An argument from authority is not necessarily a reason to reject
that argument. Because life is short and we cannot be experts in
absolutely everything, we frequently have to rely on authorities --
people who are recognized experts in the relevant field. I am confident
that when I drive across this bridge it will not collapse under the
weight of my car because I trust the expertise of the engineers who
designed and constructed the bridge. In other words, I rely on the
relevant authorities for my conclusion that this bridge is safe. An
argument from authority is unsound only if the quoted authorities are
themselves not reliable -- they are not experts in the relevant field,
and/or their supposed qualifications are bogus. There are many examples
of this -- like relying on President Trump's assessment of anthropogenic
global warming, etc, etc.
Third, since it is now clear that the term "physicalism" refers to the
belief in primary matter, I have never ascribed to "physicalism". I do
not know what "primary matter" is supposed to mean, and it certainly has
never been a subject of study that I have encountered in my lifetime of
work in physics. What I have argued for is the existence of an external,
objective, physical world about which there is intersubjective
agreement. Whether the matter in this world is primary or emergent from
something more fundamental is an open question, and still the subject of
active debate in the physics community: I have no commitment to either
side of this argument. Likewise, there is an ongoing debate among
physicists about realist or anti-realist interpretations of quantum
mechanics, alongside more general debates about realism in the
philosophy of physics in general.
So I do not take kindly to attempts to silence me, or put me down, by
categorizing my views in simplistic terms, or in ways that I have never
entertained.
My problems with computationalism arise from the fact that I do not
believe in mathematical platonism, and the fact that computationalism
has not produced any concrete results about the physical world -- it is
all speculative -- there is not even a proof of the existence of an
acceptable physical solution. When you have derived Newton's laws from
computationalism, then we might have something to talk about.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
