> Biological computationalism disagrees with substrate independence.
Don't leave me hanging, post citations! I welcome fringe theories when confident statements are followed by the conclusive evidence they imply. If that isn't possible, send chocolate.
But, yes, I can count. And I am comfortable with natural forms, all the way to asymptotic limits. However, I don't put up with uncomputable/undefinable reals. Are you not numeric?
Um, functional computationalism is scifi, not physics in re consciousness. It assigns the same level of reality to written numeric patterns of a dog as to a real dog. And your self for that matter. How can you prove numbers exist physically?
> Biological computationalism disagrees with substrate independence.
Don't leave me hanging, post citations! I welcome fringe theories when confident statements are followed by the conclusive evidence they imply. If that isn't possible, send chocolate.
But, yes, I can count. And I am comfortable with natural forms, all the way to asymptotic limits. However, I don't put up with uncomputable/undefinable reals. Are you not numeric?
Um, functional computationalism is scifi, not physics in re consciousness. It assigns the same level of reality to written numeric patterns of a dog as to a real dog. And your self for that matter. How can you prove numbers exist physically?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976342...
“Fringe theory” is just a knee jerk authoritarianism for method in re knowledge claims.
Classical functionalism is only mainstream if one prioritizes abstract modeling over empirical brain science.
None of which addresses what happen when self-engineered cognitive forms adapt millions of times faster, than biologically evolving cognition.
I would be happy if you tried again and did have a point that was relevant to the practical impact.
1 reply →