[Wittrs] Re: Is Computation too Static to Sustain a Mind?
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:26:14 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
Bruce asked: Are you suggesting that only a causal account of mind in
terms of BP is a scientific account?
> Yes.
Then psychology is not a science by your lights. Thanks for your candor.
I'm not interested in changing your mind but in discovering how you come
to way of thinking.
> When we talk about having concepts,
> it is not enlightening to be told that they are examples of
nonphysical facts.
Agreed. I have no idea what a non-physical fact is. Facts are facts.
They are not of any substance.
> We have concepts precisely because we have brain capacity.
In part. A necessary condition. Or at least that's we think about it.
> This capacity is not really explained computationally.
Not sure what a real explanation vs. an ordinary explanation. But if one
insists that the old valid explanation is in terms of molecules in
motion, then, by your lights, psychological accounts, using a computer
metaphor, is not a full blooded account.
>
> Searle notes that consciousness is as biological a phenomenon as
digestion
I know. But I wouldn't say "notes." I'd say "trying to convince."
Consciousness can be conceived from a 1st person or a 3rd person point
of view. Digestion cannot. There is a world of difference there,
> maybe we can find corrollations between what brains are doing
> when we enjoy having concepts or are otherwise conscious.
Not "maybe", we have. But that empirical finding alone doesn't decide
whether the correlation is best conceived as cause-effect, Searle vs
"responsible-for", Sacks and Dehaene's usage.
So what will it be?
bruce
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
