On 10/13/2015 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Oct 2015, at 07:37, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Has computationalism predicted spin? Special relativity? Quantum
field theory? General relativity?
Computationalism is used implicitly in the theory of evolution, in
biology, and in physics once we abandon the collapse of the wave.
Except those sciences were well developed already using Newtonian
physics and before anyone had even guessed at quantum mechanics. So I
think you give to much credit to computationalism. I don't think
there's been even one application of Godel's theorem, much less implicit
reliance on it.
Non-computationalism is only a collection of incompatible, often
vague, ideas. There is not yet any working theory.
Sure there is: If you change some process in the brain it will change
the conscious experience of the person. And there are lots of details
to that theory as to how the changes happen and what the mechanism is.
Which incidentally, computationalism contributed nothing.
Then computationalism explains both consciousness and matter
appearance already.
So does "God did it." but both explanations explain too much.
Physics do not even try, it assumes them, and some identity link. It
works well to make local prediction, but it fails on consciousness
(when it does not eliminate it).
It doesn't fail. It just fails to meet your critereon to having an
axiomatic explanation. But even quantum mechanics doesn't have an
axiomatic basis - or rather it has several different ones; which is
typical of physical theories.
Physics is not a science addressing those questions.
True, but computer science and neurophysiology are addressing them.
Theology is the original science addressing those question,
Theology is the science of gods and man's relation to god.
and indeed computationalism explains why neoplatonist theology fit
better the most obvious facts (existence of mind and matter
appearance) than physics, when physics is seen as a theology
(Aristotle idea).
It's really a slur to label physics "Aristotlean". Aristotle never did
physics. He did arm chair theorizing which he could have immediately
refuted by simple experiments which he never thought of doing. Thales
and Anaximander and Aristarchus could much more reasonably considered
physicist - but their influence was cut off by theology, by referring
all mysteries to the action of gods.
You just seem to be not interested in "philosophy" of mind or
theology, and at the same time you argue that physics is the only
correct theology, but then give us what is your non-computationalist
theory of mind.
That's a fair challenge. But it's usual in the early stages to the
development of a science that one has many observations but only local
effective theories and no over-arching scheme. Even in physics there is
no over arching theory that includes quantum mechanics and general
relativity; but that's not the same as having no theory of physics.
There have been over arching theories, theologies, but they've never
proven productive. Historically all the progress has been made by
looking at the shadows on the cave wall and saying, "Let's see what we
can figure out from them."
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
