Pls see after Jason's remark
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jason 
  To: Everything List 
  Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:42 AM
  Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

  On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  > On 2/18/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  > My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable assumptions to
  > > be accepted.
  I believe that to say that some special substrate is needed for
  consciousness, be it chemical reactions or anything else, is
  subscribing to an epiphenominal view.  For example, there should be no
  difference in behavior between a brain that operates chemically and
  one which has its chemical reactions simulated on a computer; however
  if it is the chemicals themselves that are responsible for
  consciousness, this consciousness can have no effect on the brain
  because the net result will be identical whether the brain is
  simulated or not.  To me, epiphenominalism is a logical contradiction,
  because if consciousness has no effect on the mind, we wouldn't wonder
  about the mind-body problem because the mystery of consciousness would
  have no way of communicating itself to the brain.  Therefore, I don't
  see how anything external to the functioning of the brain could be
  responsible for consciousness.

  I think you are in a limitation and draw conclusions from this limited model 
to beyond it.
  Whatever we can 'simulate' is from within the up-to-date knowledge base: our 
cognitive inventory. That is OK  - and the way how humanity developed over the 
eras of the epistemic enrichment since dawn. Topics are added and views change 
as we learn more. 
  We are not (yet?) at the end with omniscience.

  So our today's simulation is valid only to the extent of today's level of 
knowables. Nobody can include the yet unknown into a simulation. (see the 
remark of Stathis: "> You can't prove that a machine will be conscious in the 
same way you are.")

  If you insist of considering "the brain", it is OK with me (I go further in 
my views into  a total interconnection) but from even the brain you can include 
into your simulation only what was learnt about it to date. 
  The computer cannot go beyond it either.
   The brain does. 
  So our model-simulation is just that: a limited model.
  Are we ready for surprizes?

  John M

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to