[Wittrs] Re: Is Computation too Static to Sustain a Mind?
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 23:03:32 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> We have a starting definition that awaits an analytic definition after
enough empirical inquiry.
Do you mean to say that we start with the everyday, indisputable fact
that we are conscious but a more technical definition might served us
better in scientific research? If so, why called it "ontological
subjectivity?" What does that convey that hasn't been said in my first
sentence? Is it you want to stave off behavioristic and/or functional
definitions that try to bypass our consciousness, which, of course, can
only be seen in the 1st person, in order to restrict study to the 3rd
person point of view?
I don't see your consciousness. Then again, you don't see yours either.
You are conscious.
> we're after scientific explanations which don't involve programs.
On what grounds do you claim that accounts of mind characterized as
programs is less than scientific?
Are you suggesting that only a causal account of mind in terms of BP is
a scientific account? Aren't there lots of scientific accounts not
causal?
> If not, then one has to show how the notion of "information
processing" is carved off the physics,
Again, biology and psychology are respectable scientific disciplines not
carved off physics.
bruce
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
