[ExI] Is the brain a digital computer?

[Dan]

Maybe I'm getting the wrong view from reading his work, but my view is Kim is a materialist or a "physicalist" -- which seems to me to be a euphemism for materialist. I get this from, e.g., his _Physicalism, Or Something Near Enough.

Regarding Pollack's paper, no, I haven't read it, but is this something like the user illusion view? I'll get the paper... maybe I'm completely off on this.

That said, though, I don't think the dualist position is necessarily religious. To me, there are just many different views one can have walking into this issue. Dualism happens to be the view many take, but I don't think they take it for religious reasons -- meaning, they hold it on faith. Rather, I think it's just a default position for many.

Regards,

Dan

----- Original Message ----
From: Aware <aware at awareresearch.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 2:22:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Is the brain a digital computer?

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is not to say I'm a dualist, but I don't think one has to stand firm against it on these issues -- though, to be sure, I'm more persuaded by the likes of Jaegwon Kim than by dualists at this time.

Dan, I'm not familiar with Jaegwon Kim's work beyond what I got from
Wikipedia, but his position appears clearly recognizable as that of
the analytic philosopher who sees the incoherence of his retreat to
the shallow end of the pool of dualism, but has not yet realized that
he can exit the pool with no loss or cost whatsoever.

Since you professed some alignment with his position, let me ask you:
Have YOU read John Pollacks paper on "nolipsism."  Does it not resolve
this matter simply and clearly, except that it doesn't provide the
comfort of having an *essential* self that one can grasp?  [Note that
the one who would grasp is quite real in any and all ways that
matter.]

- Jef