Hi Chris and Alfredo. Thanks for the great resource. I have gone through all the arguments. I have not internalised all of them fully, or anything close to this. However, I got the impression there is a strong case against CF.
Thanks for taking a look! The tricky thing is thereās a strong case against most positions in philosophy of mindā¦ Eric Schwitzgebel has called the field ācrazyistā, a bit like QM, on the basis that there are multiple possible positions, each with bizarre implications, but where reason does not (yet) compel us to a single one. But for sure, computational functionalism has some major challenges facing it that are often ignored or poorly addressed, and those challenges can lead to putting a low probability estimate on it...
That makes sense. Can I crosspost to the EA Forum arguments from Computational Functionalism Debate (linking to this post too)? I would like to share the Pen & Paper Argument, which is among the ones against CF which I find most persuasive.
Hi Chris and Alfredo. Thanks for the great resource. I have gone through all the arguments. I have not internalised all of them fully, or anything close to this. However, I got the impression there is a strong case against CF.
Thanks for taking a look! The tricky thing is thereās a strong case against most positions in philosophy of mindā¦ Eric Schwitzgebel has called the field ācrazyistā, a bit like QM, on the basis that there are multiple possible positions, each with bizarre implications, but where reason does not (yet) compel us to a single one. But for sure, computational functionalism has some major challenges facing it that are often ignored or poorly addressed, and those challenges can lead to putting a low probability estimate on it...
That makes sense. Can I crosspost to the EA Forum arguments from Computational Functionalism Debate (linking to this post too)? I would like to share the Pen & Paper Argument, which is among the ones against CF which I find most persuasive.
Please go aheadāIām glad itās proving useful
Published.