> > A good, if somewhat lightweight, article on the nature of mind and whether = > silicon can eventually manifest conscioussness.. > > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/09/1044725672185.html > > Kevin
I don't know if consciousness debates are verbotten here or not, but I will say that I grow weary of Penrose worming his way into every debate/article with his hand-waving about quantum phenomenae. Their only application to the debate is that they are unknown and therefore a subject of mystery, like consciousness. The implied inference used by many, including this author, is that they are therefore related. He makes a good point about the failure of the neuron replacement thought experiment, but slipping "and there is much in quantum physics to suggest it might be" into the last paragraph left a bad taste in my mouth. Ascribing the unknown to quantum physics, merely because it is mysterious, is no different than ascribing it to the Almighty. -Brad ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
