Again, no. The octagon requires establishing shapes over gestalts over edges over adjacency relations. Each layer has to be constructed in a learning process and is not immediately given.
Could you turn this statement into an argument? Why do you think functionalism is wrong?
-
-
My statement contains the argument: we are conscious and we use the full functional complexity of the brain. Assuming that only a subset of those dynamics, which we selected in an oversimplified model, would have consciousness is the statement lacking argument (is just an idea)
-
While working on implementing intelligence I find fundamental to keep updated with neuroscience; I find also useful the input from fields like philosophy, but there experts under current knowledge seem to lack arguments to move the balance in favor of any of opposite positions
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.