[Wittrs] Re: Is Computation too Static to Sustain a Mind?
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:48:41 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> responding to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/6172
> Bruce:
> None of this relationship stuff appears on the BP level.
Yes, I agree with Bruce there.
> Budd:
> The problem here is that you raise questions which make it appear
> that there can't be a psychology which is also read off physics. But
> there has to be.
Why does there have to be? To me, your statement comes across as an
argument from ignorance.
> Budd:
> But it will be an empirical matter of finding corrolations--this
> goes for consciousness as well as concept formation and may indeed
> be at levels of organization that instantiate discoverable laws
> about how concept formation necessarily happens at higher than the
> molecular level.
Correlations between what? IMO, much of the talk about neural
correlates of consciousness is terminally vague.
> There is no good a priori argument to the effect that we can't have
> what Fodor is groping for. And it is clear that many are fond of
> not trying.
That seems to reinforce the view that you are appealing to the argument
from ignorance.
> Weaker than Putnam's not trying would be just betting (except if
> it involved money and a long lifespan I guess), as Neil simply bets
> that Fodor's program/Searle's program can't be brought off.
I wasn't betting; I was predicting. That is to say, my conclusion
does not come from guessing.
Regards,
Neil
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
