> On 1 Mar 2020, at 09:12, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 6:12:11 PM UTC-6, PGC wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 6:13:24 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote: > > > On 2/29/2020 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 29 Feb 2020, at 03:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/28/2020 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 28 Feb 2020, at 13:05, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Only Platonists jump to a belief that there is a ghostly world of >>>>> abstract entities called "numbers" that exists outside of matter (whether >>>>> that matter is your brain or your computer). >>>> >>>> We don’t need this either. We need only to believe that 2+3 = 5, or that >>>> phi_i(j) converges or not converges. The philosophy and metaphysics come >>>> after. >>>> If not, it is like studying the working of my brain to convince myself >>>> that I understand correctly that 2+2=4. That does not work, because my >>>> brain study is based on my belief that 2+2=4. >>>> You could aswel say that Einstein’s theory is circular, because you want >>>> to explain 2+2=4 with Matter, but Einstein’s theory use the numbers, and >>>> assumes they do what they need to give sense to, say, E= mc^2. >>>> >>>> At some point, people have to put *all* the hypothesis on the table, so >>>> that it is clear what is assumed, and what is derived. >>> >>> That doesn't really help because it leaves open the relation between what >>> is assumed to be true and what is actually. That's why reasoning that is >>> not grounded in ostensive definitions and empirically tested is just a game. >> >> Accepting the Aristotelian credo, but I have never found one empirical or >> theoretical evidence for it, > > You just refuse to see it. It's all around you. The evidence is that it > works. > >> and then with Mechanism we know, or should know, that it does not make >> sense. Physicalism + mechanism gives magical power to “matter” by enabling >> it to prevent a Turing machine, 100% similar to you at the relevant >> description level, to be conscious. This raise the question if some holy >> water is not also needed, or the will of some supernatural creature … >> >> Ostensive definition works very well, but not in computationalist >> metaphysics, as ostension happens in dreams, and thus in arithmetic. Physics >> is the science of measuring the relative plausibility of >> computations/dreams, and computer science, predicts quickly the many worlds, >> and the (propositional) quantum formalism, where materialism must still >> eliminate or dismiss consciousness and the mind-body problem. > > Even in philosophizing about consciousness you rely on ostensive definition: > when you write about "seeing red" or "counting" as conscious activities you > are relying on and assuming that it points to what it brings to mind in your > reader. > > Or even simpler regarding conscious activities: "how does the brain work?" in > the first place. The idea of the brain as a machine may or may not be > fruitful in terms of AI, philosophy etc. but it still is a metaphor. > "Machines work, brains work; they're both mechanisms, inputs and outputs... > so Descartes, right?" > > Convincing folks of the veracity of this metaphor as a computationalist with > such an agenda, you'd have to perform something as huge as "model/simulate an > entire complex nervous system, with neuronal function, at a single state" + > bring home loot, such as cures for illnesses and viruses etc. > > Show folks this, in any language or code, informed by whatever beliefs of > researchers/scientists working on any substrate, and then we may or may not > want to talk machine philosophy and identity questions. Go ahead, Bruno + > computationalists (that can perfectly separate truth from falsity in reality, > you guys that can absolutely, with complete and utter seriousness distinguish > real facts from fiction; as we've learned in this thread): show the > neuroscience community and the rest of us how it's REALLY done. Everybody > ready to learn around here, right? PGC > > > I presume :) everyone here has reviewed all the abstracts, workshops, > posters, and sessions at next month's TSC 2020 conference: > > http://consciousness.arizona.edu/ <http://consciousness.arizona.edu/> > abstracts: https://eagle.sbs.arizona.edu/sc/abs_report_bysession.php?p=C > <https://eagle.sbs.arizona.edu/sc/abs_report_bysession.php?p=C> > > > (Does anyone have a presentation there?) > > What approach to consciousness is missing from this gazillion collection of > presentations?
They missed the hard problem of consciousness, that is the mind-body problem. Explicitly so. In a sense, they miss a millenium of progress in that filed, but this reminds us that we are still in the Aristotelian era (even more after 2000). Bruno > > @philipthrift > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7d214d94-4295-4658-b51f-b775ac0e0801%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7d214d94-4295-4658-b51f-b775ac0e0801%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/F883574F-CC9A-458B-B90B-61850038A00C%40ulb.ac.be.
