On 4/25/2017 7:19 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 25/04/2017 7:30 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:44, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/24/2017 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2017, at 13:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 23/04/2017 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
It's you who's begging the question, first define what is a
computation with physics first, without relying on abstract
mathematical notion.
A computation with physics is what is happening in the computer I
am currently working on. I can describe this in mathematical
notation if you wish, but the process is not the notation. Any
process that takes input and produces output is a computation. All
physical objects do this. And physical objects do not know any
mathematics.
You assume that there are primary physical object.
Bruce's post refers to physical objects (one of which he perceives
immediately), but nothing he says depends on the physical objects
being "primary".
His last remark shows that he is interested in physics. But then why
does he participate in a discussion which is in
metaphysics/theology/cognitive-science?
I was interested to see if you had anything useful to offer. Also, it
seems to be a good idea to have a few contrary voices on this list --
otherwise you would be speaking in an echo chamber where everybody
thought alike. Or else just preaching to the choir. That is never a
healthy situation.
Pirmary matter is an hypothesis that we do in metaphysics/theology,
not in physics.
So if computationalism is just metaphysics/theology, what has it got
to do with the real world? You say that 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact in
reality. But that is a fact only in arithmetical reality. It relates
to the physical world only if one defines a mapping between the
symbols and experienced objects. So you have to map the computations
of the dovetailer to the world, and that mapping is not part of the
definition of the dovetailer. You seem to want to construct the
necessary mapping by reference to the perceived world, but that makes
the perceived world logically prior to your account of it -- you can't
account for it unless you already assume it.
I'm interested in theories of consciousness as they relate to
intelligence. For example, I doubt that it is possible to make a
philosophical zombie and I thought Bruno's theory might put some light
on that. I have an idea of how human consciousness works and how it
relates to intelligence, and I can imagine other kinds of
consciousness. But I have the impression that Bruno's theory of
consciousness is like his theory of physics - it predicts also possible
kinds and maybe a lot of other stuff too.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.