On 7/27/2019 4:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Jul 2019, at 19:29, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/26/2019 12:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But it seems like an ad hoc assumption to save your theory.
On the contrary, it becomes a theorem.
Bruno
OK, what's the proof that humans need a brain, given nothing but
computationalism as an axiom.
Computationalism requires a universal machine A implemented in another
universal machine or universal machinery B.
Are you claiming that follows deductively from YD+CT? Or that its
"required" in order that your theory hold?
B can be arithmetic or any universal machinery or universal number.
The universal machine A is the one that the machine will call brain, if it
persists in the majority of the computational extensions, and it will seems
like a physical gift.
The brain is a physical thing. All your other "machines" are platonic
objects. So it makes no sense to say that brains, or which there are
many, is "the universal machine", which is a platonic concept.
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d28e4f3c-1306-0181-0e2f-4cbe27d7fc73%40verizon.net.
