On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:56:37 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Monday, March 24, 2014 9:15:04 PM UTC, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: >> >> He gives six evidences. >> >> First, he falls for quantum pseudoscience. >> Second, he says that he personally failed to make AI when he tried and >> incorrectly implies that difficulty means impossibility. >> Third, he brings up the hard problem and uses it to make an argument from >> ignorance. >> Fourth, he says he doesn't know how to define what he means by >> consciousness, and then makes another argument from ignorance. >> Fifth, he repeats the mistaken Berkeley's Master argument. >> Sixth, he falls for NDE pseudoscience. >> >> Unconvincing. >> l >> > > I would agree with a substantial amount of that or else otherwise that > he's wrong. But to be fair at minimum substance of having no more than a > hunch, he's really up against the odds, because he has to swim against the > current of a stream dominated by objects originally conjectured to be > in accordance with what has been a long standing general > explanation. Likewise all on-going refinements arising out of the same > inbuilt utility for reinforcing that same long standing explanation. All > six objects you list depend for their on going selection for extension on > their fitness for purpose, manifested as ongoing positive reinforcement. > > Seen that way it's less of a surprise he would have to interpret at least > one, probably all, at least a little bit different. Nor hardly a surprise > that all such doors have been slammed shut long since. Maybe so long since > that the labels - the names given such as you list, are so familiar to > proponents, and so agreed with, with so little or even nothing between any > two proponents. Hence so long since the last major revisionist, or > potentially so, dynamism graced the innards, the home turf, the place where > only proponents go. > > Is any of this a problem, or is it no different than science as usual? > Well, the thing is, this sort of reinforcement and undisturbed unanimity > has normally settled onto theoretical domains that had a heyday once, in > which that theoretical accomplishment told the world things about the > nature of reality, that hadn't been anticipated and where the world could > go and look to find it, typically in a place the world had never thought to > look. Not only that, but even a large section of the enablers - whether > technology or analytical devices, that going to look entailed use of. Not > only that, but devices and models, and technologies, and even new and > independent sciences, were typically independent in fundamental ways, of > that theory, such that the potential for duplicate components in both, > producing convergent results was minimized. > # > > I think this points to a legitimate concern as to the health of your > preferred theory. It has basically produced approximately nothing in more > than 50 years. And this despite multiple revolutions in the background > enabling technologies, not least computing itself, that all takent > together, should have been enough to heave your theory over any holding > back hurdles. But remarkably,, any reasonable process of controlling for > progress arising from revolutions in the background enabliers, the > approximate give back of your theory is nothing. > > I think just for that alone, a little less stridency, and a large helping > of humbleness and innards generated uncertainty and scepticism - even if > only playing devils advocate, because that's fine. So long as it's hardball > it's fine. And maybe not so much reeling off 6 longstanding - philosophy > standard - refutations of interpretive variations, almost in glib > fashion, when someone is struggling upstream with a hunch, that on the > face of things, looks at leat partially...actualluy pretty reasonable. > Beggars can't choosers domain of computationism,. Take a closer look at the > upstream swimmers and their hunches. if you can't produce your own from > within, that lead to things moving forward again. Welcome the swimmers. > that being said the guy talks a lot of shit, so perhaps look there least, or last t
> > On Monday, March 24, 2014 3:36:43 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg > >> >>> http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/consciousness-is-not-a-computation-2 >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
