[ExI] How not to make a thought experiment
jonkc at bellsouth.net
Wed Feb 3 16:13:18 UTC 2010
On Feb 2, 2010, at 9:32 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:
> The human mind thus "has semantics" and any coherent model of it must explain that plain fact.
But before that can happen you must explain what you mean by explain.
> The computationalist model fails to explain that plain fact.
It explains it beautifully according to my understanding of the word. You want a theory that is simultaneously completely understandable and utterly mysterious, so naturally you have been disappointed.
> On that model minds do no more than run programs and programs do no more than manipulate symbols according to rules of syntax.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to think you may have said something along those lines before, and I think I even remember people bringing up very good counter arguments against that argument that you have steadfastly ignored.
> Nothing in the model explains how the mind can have conscious understand the symbols it manipulates.
True, they are not comprehensible and incomprehensible at the same time.
> I look inside your head I see nothing even remotely resembling a digital computer.
Then why are people spending hundreds of millions of dollars building digital computers that simulate larger and larger chunks of neurons?
> Instead I see a marvelous product of biological evolution.
How can you dare use the word "Evolution"!? YOUR VIEWS ARE 100% INCOMPATIBLE WITH EVOLUTION!
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat