Re: computationalism and superveniencehttp://groups.google.co.uk/group/everything-list/post?hl=en&inreplyto=54a104395cdfc033&reply_to=group&_done=%2Fgroup%2Feverything-list%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F2c87e20114f392fc%2F54a104395cdfc033%3Fhl%3Den%26

From: 1Z <peterdjones.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:09:43 -0000

Bruno Marchal wrote:

> > The other sticking point is, given computationalism
> > is right, what does it take to implement a computation? There have
> > been arguments
> > that a computation is implemented by any physical system (Putnam,
> > Searle, Moravec)
> > and by no physical system (Maudlin, Bruno Marchal).
>
>
>
> OK. To be sure Maudlin would only partially agree. Maudlin shows (like
> me) that we have:
>
> NOT COMP or NOT PHYSICAL SUPERVENIENCE
>
> But apparently Maudlin want to keep physical supervenience, and thus
> concludes there is a problem with comp. I keep comp, and thus I
> conclude there is a problem with physical supervenience.
> Actually I just abandon the thesis of the physical supervenience, to
> replace it by a thesis of number-theoretical supervenience.

There is a lot more evidence for physical supervenience than there is
for
computationalism. (There are no fully succesful human-type AI's, for
instance).

Computationalism is strongly opposed by some neuroscientists:

http://www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/church-turing/index.html

http://www.consciousentities.com/edelman.htm

http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=178

http://www.santafe.edu/~johnson/reviews.edelman.html


> > The discussion about Platonism
> > and the ontological status of mathematical structures, in particular,
> > relates to this
> > second issue. Bruno alludes to it in several papers and posts, and
> > also alludes to his
> > "movie graph argument", but as far as I can tell that argument in its
> > entirety is only
> > available in French.
>
>
> That's true. I should do something about that. I don't feel it is so
> urgent in the list because there are more simple problem to tackle
> before, and also, most "MWI", or "Everything"-people can easily imagine
> the UD doesn't need to be run.

!!!!!!!!!

How to conclude Platonism by assuming Platonism !

>But this is a subtle problem for those
> who have faith in their uniqueness or in the uniqueness of the world.
> Still you are right, I should write an english version of the movie
> graph.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Aug 21 2006 - 11:11:36 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST