Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/10/2018 6:56 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Jan 2018 02:34, "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 1/10/2018 6:11 PM, David Nyman wrote: If you read the rest of Tallis's piece you'll see that he criticises the characterisation of the physical environment a

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 11 Jan 2018 02:34, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 1/10/2018 6:11 PM, David Nyman wrote: If you read the rest of Tallis's piece you'll see that he criticises the characterisation of the physical environment as encoding 'information' independent of interpretation. This objection can be dealt with b

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/10/2018 6:11 PM, David Nyman wrote: If you read the rest of Tallis's piece you'll see that he criticises the characterisation of the physical environment as encoding 'information' independent of interpretation. This objection can be dealt with by the reversal, Can it?  Isn't it just /a

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 10 January 2018 at 23:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 11/01/2018 9:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 1/10/2018 11:23 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > Searle makes his position even more vulnerable by arguing that not only > are neural activity and the experience of perception the same but that the > f

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 11/01/2018 9:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/10/2018 11:23 AM, David Nyman wrote: Searle makes his position even more vulnerable by arguing that not only are neural activity and the experience of perception the same but that the former /causes /the latter just as water is “caused” by H_2

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/10/2018 11:23 AM, David Nyman wrote: Searle makes his position even more vulnerable by arguing that not only are neural activity and the experience of perception the same but that the former /causes /the latter just as water is “caused” by H_2 O. This is desperate stuff: one could hard

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 10 Jan 2018 13:48, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 7 Jan 2018, at 12:42, David Nyman wrote: On 7 January 2018 at 09:52, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 6 Jan 2018, at 21:09, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 6 Jan 2018 19:46, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: > > > On 5 Jan 2018, at 21:04, David Nyman wrote: >

Re: Massive ‘anomaly’ lurks beneath ice in Antarctica

It's my understanding that the real kicker was that (it is hypothesized as an effect of the massive global warming) that the oceanic circulation shut down and the oceans became largely anoxic and as  result began producing copious amounts of hydrogen sulfide (made by anaerobic microorganisms) th

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 7 Jan 2018, at 12:42, David Nyman wrote:On 7 January 2018 at 09:52, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 6 Jan 2018, at 21:09, David Nyman wrote:On 6 Jan 2018 19:46, "Bruno Marchal" wrote:On 5 Jan 2018, at 21:04, David Nyma

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 7 Jan 2018, at 19:35, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/7/2018 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Jan 2018, at 20:39, Brent Meeker >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/6/2018 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Is the Mars Rover conscious? Pro

Re: Massive ‘anomaly’ lurks beneath ice in Antarctica

On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 6:46:16 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:16 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Most likely an asteroid that caused the Permian extinction event. AG >> > > ​ > No, > ​ > the eruption of the volcanic Siberian Traps > ​ > most likely caused the > ​ > P