(February 1, 2016 at 9:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I wouldn't throw jorm in the comp camp. Id let jorm pitch jorms own tent. Jorm can give you some harsh criticism on the concept of comp mind, though. I'll toss some in here as I respond to your question.
I don't think you're barking up the wrong tree, but I appreciate how difficult it would be to demonstrate that this is how mind works. This description of yours is, after all, how the gates in a cpu represent their inputs, and very literally those gates which are active, on, true, build by relationships the vivid perception we would call a CGI movie masterwork on-screen. Is it overly simplistic, sure. We're a bunch of mugs on the internet trying to discuss our preferred explanations of mind though, so that's okay.
Jorms already dropped what I would have offered as the best comment on the troubles of comp mind..while I was wasting time trying to think of something smart to say. I would also add that it's easy to say "it can be done this way" but this is not at all equivalent to "it is done this way". The one only suggests what we might find it prudent to look for, or where, in search of the other, not the ultimate status of fact regarding the other. Proving that comp mind is possible does not prove that we are comp minds.
I was just basing that on the fact that she said earlier that her position was similar to yours but apologies to her if I've misrepresented it.
I didn't know that about CPUs, so cool



Maybe not, and perhaps nothing can prove what we are one way or the other for sure, but just finding something that could do it would be a very convincing argument in its favour.
Anyway, gotta go to bed now so I'll say night night

