On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Empirical evidence requires observation. How do you observe consciousness? I bet other people are conscious because they look similar to me, and I know I am. Are cats conscious? Bacteria? The universe as a whole? The Earth's ecosystem? Stars? I don't know, and nobody knows. We have a large amount of evidence for the brain being a computer capable of supporting complex algorithms that support behaviors that we label as "intelligent". Simplistic models of the brain (artificial neural networks) are now capable of things like recognising faces, driving cars and even producing nightmarish works of art. There is also massive evidence for this intelligent machine being an outcome of Darwinian evolution. All of this is clear. Consciousness? You are just sweeping the hard problem under the rug. Explain to me: 1. Why we are not just Zombies, with the exact some capabilities but no consciousness; 2. How consciousness emerges from the known laws of physics. What are the first principles that explain that emergence? Give me other emergent behabiors and I can show you the first principles. Not so with consciousness. Then we can talk about evidence. > 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. I agree that arguments from authority are necessary to save time, but in the context of a debate about a mystery of nature for which no strong and widely-accepted scientific theories exist, it is nonsensical to invoke authority. Also, this is not a place where people come to have their car repaired, or their doctor appointment. This is a discussion forum about the unsolved deep mysteries of reality. Finally, invoking authority is childish. Authority is recognised, not demanded. > 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. Ok, so what are you discussing exactly? I thought we were discussing Bruno's proof on the incompatibility of computationalism and physicalism. > 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. -- 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.
