Just had one if these long discussions with a smart mathematician, and now I notice that sometimes I get the impression that computationalism (the only working philosophical edifice left) is non-obvious to 90% of people. I find that genuinely puzzling.
-
-
-
Replying to @Evollaqi
Even dualism and the different versions of idealism seem to require a computational foundation. Every supernatural entity must ultimately have natural causes (even if those are in a parent universe).
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Paraphrasing “dualism…seems to require a computational foundation” as “dualism seems to deductively entail a computational foundation” I'd be interested to see your sketch of a deduction
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisfcarroll @Evollaqi
Epistemologically, both domains will present themselves via discernible differences, must hold state, and progress in a probabilistic or deterministic fashion. If a domain is symbolic instead of mechanist, it will need an implementation somewhere.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Cartesian dualism assumed that the material world consists of stuff in space; we can now reduce that to dynamic patterns of information that can be approximately (but not fully) projected into a space. (Space is virtual.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The mental domain is one of software as well; even if our minds would use our bodies as avatars and mental and physical domain were implemented on fundamentally different substrates, we are looking at two domains that are necessarily and sufficiently computational.
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.