Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Feb 20, 2008 6:13 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The possibility of mind uploading to computers strictly depends on
functionalism being true; if it isn't then you may as well shoot
yourself in the head as undergo a destructive upload. Functionalism
(invented, and later repudiated, by Hilary Putnam) is philosophy of
mind if anything is philosophy of mind, and the majority of cognitive
scientists are functionalists. Are you still happy asserting that it's
all bunk?
Philosophy is in most cases very inefficient, hence wasteful. It puts
very much into building its theoretical constructions, few of which
are useful for understainding reality. It might be fun for those who
like this kind of thing, but it is a bad tool.
*** humor intended ***
Oddly enough, one Webster definition of philosopher is "one who seeks
wisdom or enlightenment. " Nothing wrong with that.
It seems that when philosophy is implemented it becomes like nuclear
physics e.g. break down all the things we essentially understand until
we come up with pieces, which we give names to, and then admit we don't
know what the names identify - other than broken pieces of something we
used to understand when it was whole. My limited experience with those
who practice philosophy is that they love to go to the absurd - I
suspect this is meant as a means of proof, but often comes across as
"macho philosophoso." Kind of "I can prove anything you say is absurd."
I welcome the thoughts of "Philosophers."
-------------------------------------------
singularity
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=96140713-a54b2b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
