[Wittrs] Re: Is Computation too Static to Sustain a Mind?
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 02:06:36 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "BruceD" <blroadies@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@> wrote:
>
> > 2. Consciousness and thinking are dynamic processes, of which
> computing has none.
>
> Stuart, what means "dynamic process" in this context?
>
> Thanks,
>
> bruce
Good question and the very point I was making, i.e., that "dynamic" and
"static" can be used in a variety of ways, refer to a variety of phenomena. If
so, then Charlie's proposal that they are self-contradictory does not imply
that they are self-contradictory in this sense since applying these terms to
brains, minds, computers and computer programming may simply involve using them
in distinctly different senses. If so, it doesn't automatically follow that
saying of computational operations that they are static rather than dynamic has
any implications for the claim that consciousness is dynamic.
But I think it is up to Charlie to state clearly what he means in each case.
All I can do is note that the terms, while self-contradictory in one sense are
not inherently so in all senses.
By the way, nearby I see that you have again referred to your "intentions" when
talking about "intentionality". These terms are not the same and, though
related, do not represent the same concept. As noted before, the philosophical
notion of "intentionality" is the notion of "aboutness" as in thinking about,
knowing that, etc. Having an intention, on the other hand, is to have a motive,
objective, anticipated outcome of a given action, etc.
The philosophical question does not ask whether we can have motives or whether
they underlie our instances of knowledge. It, rather, asks how our instances of
knowledge can be about the things we know.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
