RE: What Computationalism is and what it is *not*

From: Lee Corbin <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:27:36 -0700

Bruno writes

> Well, even at step 0 (Yes doctor), if the doctor is honest it will
> warn you that the artificial brain is a digital device, and I cannot
> imagine him explaining what that really means in all generality
> without invoking Church thesis.

That's funny. My doctor never explains even how my blood pressure
medication works. On the contrary, the surgeons would definitely
*not* bring up CT when/if they replace a bundle of neurons with an
electronic cable; their only assurances to the patient are whether
works or not, and whether I'll feed any pain (besides the bill).

Nor, does it seem, does Microsoft or Intel ever use CT in its
promotions of various devices for, say, the military. Everyone
already knows what computers do (roughly), and what can be
expected of them.

The accepted *definition* by usage that everyone uses is that it
is a *claim* that classical (non-QM) robots could be conscious,
that minds could be uploaded into computers. So invent your own
term if you don't like how the rest of the world is using
of "computationalism".

Lee
Received on Mon Sep 05 2005 - 20:40:45 PDT