= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
magfrump comments on Irrationality Game II - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (380)
I feel like we are talking past each other in a way that I do not know how to pinpoint.
Part of the problem is that I am trying to compare three things--what I believe, the original statement, and the theory of computationalism.
To try to summarize each of these in a sentence:
I believe that the entire universe essentially "is" a computation, and so minds are necessarily PARTS of computations, but these computations involve their environments. The theory of computationalism tries to understand minds as computations, separate from the environment. The OP suggests that computationalism is likely not a very good way of figuring out minds.
1) do these summaries seem accurate to you? 2) I still can't tell whether my beliefs agree or disagree with either of the other two statements. Is it clearer from an outside perspective?
Your summaries look good to me. As compared to your beliefs, standard Computational Theory of Mind is probably neither true nor false, because it's defined in the context of assumptions you reject. Without those assumptions granted, it fails to state a proposition, I think.
I am constantly surprised and alarmed by how many things end up this way.