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 there’s a strong case against most positions in philosophy of mind… Eric Schwitzgebel has called the field ‘crazyist’, 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...
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 there’s a strong case against most positions in philosophy of mind… Eric Schwitzgebel has called the field ‘crazyist’, 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...