@Plinz Oh, so now that we assume the movement is not causality, we can explain the mind? And that sounds logical?
-
-
-
@MXORN We basically did not have a computational perspective on the mind before 1950, and are still not used to it - 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@umruehren@Plinz In your pan-computational view, is an old steam train not a 100 GB computer with brass and grease? -
@blubberquark I am not a pan-computationalist. And steam trains are not exactly general computers@umruehren - 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@Plinz explaining the mind means building an equivalent system. the mechanism metaphor didn't prohibit that. it's just a long-term project. -
@umruehren It was not a problem of building, but of perspective. Only LaMettrie understood that mechanisms can be "mathematical and eternal" - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.