On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
My problem with your version is twofold: > > 1) You remove "mind" from the definition and focus on "brain", Mind is just what the brain does. > > which > > implies and assumption that is not implied by CTM > I repeat the Wikipedia definition I quoted: *"A computational theory of mind names a view that the human mind or the human brain (or both) is an information processing system and that thinking is a form of computing." * > 2) The second clause of your definition is about intelligent behavior > > as performed by computers, which is about AI, not mind. > It's about intelligent behavior as performed by ANYTHING . If intelligent behavior is observed then a mind is involved, if intelligent behavior is NOT observed then a mind may or may not be involved. If a mind isn't the thing that causes intelligent behavior to occur then whats the point of having a mind? > > > It could be that your definition is equivalent, but we do not know if > > that is the case, If intelligent behavior does not imply mind then what does "mind" mean? And before you answer by bringing up the dreaded "C" word remember that every single skeptical remark you make about a intelligent computers being conscious can be used with equal effectiveness to be skeptical about the consciousness of 7.6 billion living human beings on this planet, and to be skeptical about the non-consciousness of cadavers too. > > > I don't agree with the Wikipedia definition. It's one thing to disagree about facts or logical inferences, but it's just silly to disagree with expert definitions. > > I agree with > > Stanford's definition. *"* *Advances in computing raise the prospect that the mind itself is a computational system—a position known as the computational theory of mind (CTM). Computationalists are researchers who endorse CTM,"* As far as I can tell its s ix of one or a half dozen for the other. > > > I argue that some truths are > > beyond scientific inquiry, > > and I believe you argue the same. > > In fact, you express knowledge that is not scientific knowledge. When > > you say that science cannot study consciousness, because consciousness > > cannot be detected in others, you are communicating something that you > > believe to be true but that you did not discover using the scientific method. I did not use the scientific method to deduce the 2 + 2 is not equal to 5 either. Explain to me how, even in theory, I could directly know what the consciousness in another person is like without producing a logical contradiction. > > > There are other modalities of > > knowing. > I agree, intuition is one of those ways but the scientific method outranks it, if the two come into conflict the scientific method wins. The only thing that outranks science is direct experience. > > >> > >> We do know that if the definition of mind is based on behavior, especially >> intelligent >> behavior, and that is the only definition that has scientific >> >> value. If you bring consciousness into the mix then there is only one mind >> >> that is known to exist or will ever be known to exist, and "mind" would >> >> become a word with no scientific value. > > > > > I agree, but no scientific value is not the same as no value, In this case if not precisely zero the value would be infinitesimally close to zero. > > It is possible to assume computationalism and then investigate what it > > entails. Exactly. But if you assume computationalism is not true then there is nothing to investigate , you're dead in the water and can do nothing but sit and contemplate your navel till the day you die. That's what philosophers do and that's why philosophers haven't made a philosophical discovery in a thousand years, philosophers don't do philosophy anymore, but scientists and mathematicians do. John K Clark > > -- 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.
