You don’t know it. It. Is theory. :Physicalism and computationalism strongly suggest that causal histories and/or processing are important, and that supervenience of mental states on instantaneous physical states is therefore nonsense
I don’t understand that post. Could you link to a more detailed argument? The entire point of Dust Theory, remember, is that “there is nothing more to causality than correlations between states.”
But you can’t argue that physicalism and computationalism are wrong because DT is right, when you have offered no support for DT.
will be some kind of natural selection in dust world lines, which will result in more stable ones
How do you cash out stability in the absence of causality?
I have. Did you bother to read the second half of the post? And I still don’t understand your arguments about causality, would you please kindly explain them in detail?
I read the whole post, and didn’t see any arguments for dust theory.
The idea of a stable process is easy enough to cash out where you actually have proceses...it means a process that isnt disturbed too much by other processes. For instance, if you drop a feather, its path is disturbed by small air currents, if you drop a rock its path isnt.
But you do have processes in DT. They’re just theoretical ones, for lack of a better word.
it means a process that isnt disturbed too much by other processes. For instance, if you drop a feather, its path is disturbed by small air currents, if you drop a rock its path isnt.
I really don’t understand how this is an argument against Dust Theory. What do you think Dust Theory is?
But you do have processes in DT. They’re just theoretical ones, for lack of a better word.
You will need to supply the better wordsin order to persuade me that there are processes in dust theory.
It means a process that isnt disturbed too much by other processes. For instance, if you drop a feather, its path is disturbed by small air currents, if you drop a rock its path isnt.
I really don’t understand how this is an argument against Dust Theory.
It wasn’t intended as an argument against DT, it was intended an argument that the notion of stability is easy to cash out given not-DT.
What do you think Dust Theory is?
Its a family of ideas.
Centrally , the idea that mental states superevene on instantaneous physical or computational states, rather than computational or physical processes.
Peripherally, the ideas that there are no:-
Computational processes
Causal processes
Temporal sequences
Essences of selfhood that can vary independently of mental state.
But you can’t argue that physicalism and computationalism are wrong because DT is right, when you have offered no support for DT.
How do you cash out stability in the absence of causality?
I have. Did you bother to read the second half of the post? And I still don’t understand your arguments about causality, would you please kindly explain them in detail?
I read the whole post, and didn’t see any arguments for dust theory.
The idea of a stable process is easy enough to cash out where you actually have proceses...it means a process that isnt disturbed too much by other processes. For instance, if you drop a feather, its path is disturbed by small air currents, if you drop a rock its path isnt.
But you do have processes in DT. They’re just theoretical ones, for lack of a better word.
I really don’t understand how this is an argument against Dust Theory. What do you think Dust Theory is?
You will need to supply the better wordsin order to persuade me that there are processes in dust theory.
It wasn’t intended as an argument against DT, it was intended an argument that the notion of stability is easy to cash out given not-DT.
Its a family of ideas.
Centrally , the idea that mental states superevene on instantaneous physical or computational states, rather than computational or physical processes.
Peripherally, the ideas that there are no:-
Computational processes
Causal processes
Temporal sequences
Essences of selfhood that can vary independently of mental state.