>How exactly can you construct a disproof of X without using
>premises that rule out X? That’s what disproving is.
Sure, a mathematical proof proceeds from its premises and therefore any results achieved are entailed in those premises. I am not sure we are really in the real of pure mathematics here but I probably should have been more precise in my statement. In a non-mathematical discussion, a slightly longer chain of reasoning is generally preferred—starting with the premise that dualism is false is a little uncomfortably close to starting with the premise that God doesn’t exist for my taste.
>If you can give us an example of a physical phenomenon that
>cannot be generated by a Turing Machine’s output—just
>one example—then I will grant that we have no grounds
>for presuming human cognition can be so constructed.
For the record (not that I have any particular standing worthy of note): I am not a dualist and I believe 100% that human cognition is a physical phenomenon that could be captured by a sufficiently complex Turing Machine. Can I prove this to be the case? No I can’t and I don’t really care to try—and it’s likely “above my level”. The only reason I piped up at all is because I think strawman arguments are unconvincing and do a disservice to everyone.
>Also, you’ll win several Nobel Prizes and go down in history
>as one of the greatest scientist-thinkers ever.
>I’m not holding my breath.
Don’t worry—I have no such aspiration, so you can comfortably continue with your respiration.
>How exactly can you construct a disproof of X without using
>premises that rule out X? That’s what disproving is.
Sure, a mathematical proof proceeds from its premises and therefore any results achieved are entailed in those premises. I am not sure we are really in the real of pure mathematics here but I probably should have been more precise in my statement. In a non-mathematical discussion, a slightly longer chain of reasoning is generally preferred—starting with the premise that dualism is false is a little uncomfortably close to starting with the premise that God doesn’t exist for my taste.
>If you can give us an example of a physical phenomenon that
>cannot be generated by a Turing Machine’s output—just
>one example—then I will grant that we have no grounds
>for presuming human cognition can be so constructed.
For the record (not that I have any particular standing worthy of note): I am not a dualist and I believe 100% that human cognition is a physical phenomenon that could be captured by a sufficiently complex Turing Machine. Can I prove this to be the case? No I can’t and I don’t really care to try—and it’s likely “above my level”. The only reason I piped up at all is because I think strawman arguments are unconvincing and do a disservice to everyone.
>Also, you’ll win several Nobel Prizes and go down in history
>as one of the greatest scientist-thinkers ever.
>I’m not holding my breath.
Don’t worry—I have no such aspiration, so you can comfortably continue with your respiration.