On 4/26/2017 7:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Apr 2017, at 00:19, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/25/2017 1:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Apr 2017, at 01:13, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 24/04/2017 6:07 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Russell Standish
<li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Ok, so you are rejecting computationalism. Computationalism is the
hypothesis that our mind supervenes on computations (sorry
Bruno, it's
easier to write for the purpose of this discussion :). You are
declaring that mind supervene on the physical brain.
That is not it at all. We've clarified with Bruno many times that
computational supervenience is compatible with physical
supervenience. Which is just as well, as otherwise it would be so
much
the worse for computationalism.
I have no doubt that the brain is a physical computer, and that
computations performed by the brain are no different from any other
computations.
We are discussing physicalism and computationalism, and if they are
compatible or not, correct?
Bruce repeatedly makes variation of the claim: "look, the brain is
physical and the brain generates consciousness, these are the facts".
This is what I am replying to. It's an argument from authority that
leaves no space for debate or reasoning.
First, it is not an argument from authority, it is an argument made
on the basis of all the available evidence -- consciousness
supervenes on the physical brain.
Second. An argument from authority is not necessarily a reason to
reject that argument. Because life is short and we cannot be
experts in absolutely everything, we frequently have to rely on
authorities -- people who are recognized experts in the relevant
field. I am confident that when I drive across this bridge it will
not collapse under the weight of my car because I trust the
expertise of the engineers who designed and constructed the bridge.
In other words, I rely on the relevant authorities for my
conclusion that this bridge is safe. An argument from authority is
unsound only if the quoted authorities are themselves not reliable
-- they are not experts in the relevant field, and/or their
supposed qualifications are bogus. There are many examples of this
-- like relying on President Trump's assessment of anthropogenic
global warming, etc, etc.
Third, since it is now clear that the term "physicalism" refers to
the belief in primary matter, I have never ascribed to "physicalism".
Usually I use "Weak materialism" for the "assumption/belief" in
primary matter. primary means "in need to be assumed"; Something is
"primary" if to get its existence we need to assume it, or something
equivalent. For example, we know since the failure of logicism that
numbers are primary. We cannot derive them from logic.
But we can - and did - derive them from observation and manipulation
of objects. Numbers came from measuring the size of sheepherds, the
steps from one place to another,... You learned them that way at
your mother's knee.
I was using "derivation" in the logical or mathematical sense. Size of
sheepherds can be used for illustration, but if you think we can
derive numbers from sheep, show me a theory of sheepherds not using
numbers, and then a logical derivation of number existence from that.
Haven't you read Gamow's "One, Two, Three, Infinity".
It is a bit like the difference between we derive atoms from the
observation all around us, and we explain the origin of atoms from the
consumption of star.
What you said is correct, but not relevant in the search of a
fundamental theory.
You only think so because you assume that arithmetic and logic are
fundamental.
Of course, we can derive them from the combinators theory, but
combinators are Turing equivalent to the numbers.
Weak materialism is just the belief in some matter, and that matter
cannot be explained by something non material.
I must used "weak" before materialist, because the term
"materialist" has a special meaning in philosophy of mind: it means
that only matter "really" exist, ad is opposed to dualism (matter
and mind exists) and immaterialism monism (only immaterial objects
exist)
Physicalism is the assumption, in metaphysics/theology, that
physics is the fundamental science to which all other sciences can
be, in principle, reduced.
We can conceive some forms of physicalism which are immaterialist,
for example Tegmark is close to this. But usually, most physicalist
are weak materialist, and often I use weak materialism and
physicalism as being quasi the same thing.
I am an empirist, indeed, I extracted "computationalism" from
biology, well before I knew about Church and Turing. And I take
physics very seriously, and as the ultimate judge. Indeed, my point
is that if mechanism is correct, the physical reality is "in the
machine's head", and that is what makes mechanism testable: by
comparing the physics in the head of the machine with the physics
inferred from the observation.
Testable requires not comparison, but falsifiability. So if
computationalism predicts things that are not observed, as it must if
it is to explain thoughts, then it seems it if falsified. It is
saved only by the too cheap trick of saying everything exists.
Not everything, just 0 and the successors.
Then we get all computations as a theorem, and all the rest as
computation
No, you also require addition, multiplication, induction, rules of
inference and the UD and the realism of arithmetic. "Getting a theorem"
is only showing there is a truth preserving inference chain from some
axioms.
seen from the first person self-referential pov of the machines
emulated by those computation.
But those "persons" are characterized entirely by "beliefs" about
arithmetic. We judge theories by how well they predict the world we
observe. I don't see any persons like that.
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.