(March 23, 2016 at 6:42 am)bennyboy Wrote:(March 23, 2016 at 4:37 am)little_monkey Wrote: So it seems you're basically saying what I'm saying with different words. Remind me why we disagree?I think the difference is in what assumptions we make, and the degree to which we are willing to extend them. I'd say I'm at one end-- I'm very suspicious of extending givens about mind into general rules, especially at the scientific level-- it smacks of begging the question. You're in the middle it seems-- acknowledging the philosophical difficulties but asking what else we are going to do if we want to move forward in a sensible way. Rhythm's at the other end-- he's willing to make philosophical assumptions about mind based on a computational model, and define terms in such a way that extending them into non-human systems is not only acceptable, but pretty much a given.
That science is in its infancy. It's like at the time of Galileo running his inclined plane experiments. To most people, that might have looked like either childish, useless or profaned. Yet Galileo put physics on the map. And as a result, here we are today capable of communicating from the ends of the world, as if that technology always existed.