[Wittrs] Re: Is Computation too Static to Sustain a Mind?
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:44:06 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> We have a starting definition (of consciousness)
> that awaits an analytic definition after enough empirical inquiry:
Could you please give me other examples of starting definitions that
after empirical inquiry allowed for an analytic definition. Also, and I
hope I'm not asking too much, what empirical work do you have in mind
that would allow for a definition of consciousness other than the
ordinary one.
> BP system can be given, willy-nilly, a computational description.
How about a non-willy-nilly computational description. If a
computational cognitive model has predictive power, is it or is not the
best science for our buck?
> given that we're after BP-type explanations
> which don't need computational explanations.
we just might want to reflect that the world doesn't necessarily bend to
our conceptual dreams and we may have to give up the BP dream. That
doesn't mean giving up science, if by since one means prediction,
control, and coherent account. Just means recognizing that not all
natural phenomena fit into the procrustean bed of matter.
bruce
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
