John Clark wrote:
>
>> Consciousness theory slammed as "pseudoscience"
>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02971-1?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=84936ca310-briefing-dy-20230921&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-84936ca310-44221073
ps://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02971-1?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=84936ca310-briefing-dy-20230921&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-84936ca310-44221073>
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropo
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 3:00 PM Jason Resch wrote:
> *By its own definitions IIT is not falsifiable, for it proclaims that a
> computer program that gave identical behavior in all situations to another
> conscious system, would not be conscious. But since it has identical
> behavior there is no o
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 2:43 PM Dylan Distasio wrote:
*> Having read that letter, I don't find it very becoming of the scientists
> writing it who should know better. Regardless of what you think about
> IIT and its merits or lack thereof, it results in some predictions that can
> be tested*
>
es/d41586-023-02971-1?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=84936ca310-briefing-dy-20230921&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-84936ca310-44221073>
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> jqq
>
ll on the signees.
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 2:08 PM John Clark wrote:
> Consciousness theory slammed as "pseudoscience"
> <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02971-1?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=84936ca310-briefing-dy-20230921&utm_medium=email&utm_t
Consciousness theory slammed as "pseudoscience"
<https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02971-1?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=84936ca310-briefing-dy-20230921&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-84936ca310-44221073>
John K ClarkSee what's on
7 matches
Mail list logo
