I really liked the point of mechanical philosophy you made. This is science in action, when one paradigm can no longer be a valid model, a revised one with none of its weaknesses but with more virtues arises, in this case, the computing machine philosophy.
>And there are plenty of reasons to think that what goes on inside the brain cannot be mimicked by a computer or algorithms as we currently know them. We don't even know what consciousness is! We should at least admit as much...
I agree, it's a huge jump! And that's precisely my point. The brain as a computer paradigm has nothing to do with the idea that an i5 core can't recognize cats, is the theoretical aspect of a computing machine that is used when trying to argue in favour of the BaaC paradigm.
Conciousness is precisely what doesn't fit in the BaaC paradigm. So the research should start from there.
I'm curious if the definition conciousness will have to be changed in the near future. Exciting times!
>And there are plenty of reasons to think that what goes on inside the brain cannot be mimicked by a computer or algorithms as we currently know them. We don't even know what consciousness is! We should at least admit as much...
I agree, it's a huge jump! And that's precisely my point. The brain as a computer paradigm has nothing to do with the idea that an i5 core can't recognize cats, is the theoretical aspect of a computing machine that is used when trying to argue in favour of the BaaC paradigm.
Conciousness is precisely what doesn't fit in the BaaC paradigm. So the research should start from there. I'm curious if the definition conciousness will have to be changed in the near future. Exciting times!