On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 2:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Consider Arithmetical Functionalism: the theory that a calculation is > multiply realisable, in any device that has the right functional > organisation. But this might mean that somewhere in the vastness of > the universe, a calculation such as 2 + 2 = 4 might be being > implemented purely by chance: in the causal relationship between atoms > in an interstellar gas cloud, for example. This is clearly ridiculous, > so *either* Arithmetical Functionalism is false *or* it is impossible > that a calculation will be implemented accidentally. Right? >
I feel a little uncomfortable when people say things like 'because Occam's razor is true' or 'otherwise computationalism is false' or 'consciousness doesn't exist'. As these notions are usually quite loaded and ambiguous, and main issues with them may revolve around the question of what they actually mean, it's far from clear what is being asserted when they are declared to be 'true' or 'false'. Does 2+2=4 make a sound when there is no one around? -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- 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
