On 07 Sep 2005, at 06:44, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Bruno writes
>
>
>>> 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".
>>>
>>
>> I am very glad with the way the rest of the world [uses] the term
>> "computationalism", and I use it in the same way [only] abstracted
>> from the result I got which shows their contradictions related to
>> their wanting computationalism married with materialism.
>>
>> Comp is really for Computationalism in a weaker sense than most
>> computationalist use the term,
>>
>
> Yes, so you don't use it in quite the same way.
In a weaker way! It is ALWAYS a progress when you get results from a
weaker hypothesis. It means the theorems are true for all stronger
theories.
> Your sense is
> indeed weaker because, as you say, the other usage seems to have
> married materialism to (your weaker) comp.
The "other" usage has just inherited 2300 years of a caricature of
Aristotle's theory of mind and nature.
>
>
>> I explain all this in a sufficiently precise way as to be refuted.
>> Currently facts are going in the sense that QM confirms comp.
>>
>
> Well, I hope for the best for you.
If only you looked at what has already been done.
>
>
>> I think, Lee, from our last conversation, that you do have understand
>> the first person comp indeterminacy. Could we move on to UDA step 4 ?
>> Cf: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004Slide.pdf
>>
>
> Sorry. I can't promise anything. We all have to guess how best to
> use our time! :-)
You believe in comp. You don't believe in a theorem deduced from
comp. So you guess (non constructively!) that there is an error in
the proof.
Why don't you want to help me to catch the error you seem so sure
there is.
> Besides, it seems I have an allergy (as Stephen
> Paul King would say) to 1st person explanations of any kind!
I think I already told you I have the same allergy.
I think you are confusing 1st person explanations, which I agree are
non scientific, with third person explanations in fields, like
cognitive science, which address, as subject matter (no pun!), the
notion of 1st person manifestations.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Wed Sep 07 2005 - 11:08:07 PDT