Triviality Arguments Reconsidered

RT @okdaniellle: I am once again here to suggest a paper for those who like to think about computation and implementation. This is a unique…

RT @okdaniellle: I am once again here to suggest a paper for those who like to think about computation and implementation. This is a unique…

I am once again here to suggest a paper for those who like to think about computation and implementation. This is a unique response to triviality that challenges its validity rather than trying to overcome it 🤓 https://t.co/NwBBxTnwsQ

RT @joe_dewhurst: @__stillPoint @andrewthesmart @eripsa I endorse/develop something closer to an anti-realist approach to computation in th…

@__stillPoint @andrewthesmart @eripsa I endorse/develop something closer to an anti-realist approach to computation in this paper, although I don't quite fully commit: https://t.co/uM1A2I7oap For someone who goes the whole way, but is still a 'computation

Comp. theories of mind can be empirically rich & theoretically plausible *even if* every physical system computes. I argue (in much less depth) for a similar claim in my '94 paper (but Schweizer's move "requires rejection of the comp. sufficiency thesi

RT @joe_dewhurst: Really cool new paper by Paul Schweizer arguing that we shouldn't give up on simple mapping accounts of computation, but…

RT @joe_dewhurst: @marcolin91 @distributedcog @ericlinuskaplan @MikeBenchCapon I've spent too much time around Paul Schweizer and become mo…

Really cool new paper by Paul Schweizer arguing that we shouldn't give up on simple mapping accounts of computation, but rather that we should give up on the 'computational sufficiency thesis', i.e. the idea that (some) computation is sufficient for mind.

@marcolin91 @distributedcog @ericlinuskaplan @MikeBenchCapon I've spent too much time around Paul Schweizer and become more or less convinced of his take on triviality arguments: https://t.co/dgvNQnK6o5