Picture of the author
Topic :
Thread Created at Invalid date | Started by
Number of Post in this thread: 3Please Sign In to comment on this Thread
richwil replied 15 years ago (Jan 17th 2009, 10:19:34 pm)
Hi Stathis I don't agree that a swap would solve the problem. It seems to me that we need a new statement for the camp - some sort of general functionalism. The current camp statement seems to me to amount to computational functionalism which is incompatible with biological naturalism.
Stathis replied 15 years ago (Jan 13th 2009, 6:39:33 pm)
Yes, I agree there is a problem. My proposal would have been to swap "Computational Functionalism", which a general statement and describes the controversy you address, with "Consciousness Arises From Any Equivalent Functional Organisation", which takes a specific stance, so that the more general is the parent of the more specific, which would have included your original topic about the role of pipes. Stathis
richwil replied 15 years ago (Jan 13th 2009, 4:34:58 pm)
I have noticed that my "Pipes speculation wrong" sub camp is actually incompatible with its parent camp since the parent camp specifically states that pipes could be conscious. As i understand canonizer, this is problematic as sub camps are supposed to be refinements of parent camps and compatible with them. I'm thinking of proposing that the "Consciousness Arises From Any Equivalent Functional Organization" camp statement be moved to the computational functionalism sub camp. The new camp statement would be a more general statement inclusive of both sub-camps. What do people think?