On Aug 2, 5:26 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Craig's position seems to be more a blur than a point.  He has said that
> only biological neurons can instantiate consciousness

Consciousness is a qualitative estimation, all but useless for
discussing the distinction between biological and non-biological
interiority. It's an obsolete term as far as scientific examination
goes. I say that human equivalent consciousness can probably only be
instantiated by some form of biological neuron. Molecular level
'consciousness' is what is instantiated when you turn your computer
on. The reason that your computer's awareness will not be able to be
improved until it is a human equivalent is the same reason why only
one class of molecules makes cells and one class of cells become
neurons. If something very different could just as easily suffice, I
think that it would be common to find alternate DNA based species, non-
cellular animals, and non-neurological brains.

> and only a
> conscious being can act like a conscious being.

'Conscious' to me just means awareness of awareness, and it has no
particular symptom that can be recognized through any category of

> That would imply that a
> being with an artificial, e.g. silicon chip based, brain cannot act like
> a conscious being.

I've been repeating this over and over but nobody seems to recognize
it. Whether or not something is deemed to be 'acting like a conscious
being' just means that something resembles yourself in it's physical
appearance and behavior enough that you infer it to have an interior
environment similar to your own. It has little to do with whether or
not arithmetic can be made to feel or believe something. That is what
I am saying is a category error.

> > A consciousness can no more be copied than the state of a QM system.
> That's the point in question.  If Tegmark is right, it can.

Nah, Tegmark is wrong. Neurological signalling is just the tip of the
iceberg. There is no actual physical phenomenon as a 'signal'.
Anything can be a signal if it is interpretable as such. If brains
could be generated independently of the cells and molecules they are
made of, you would probably find some evidence of that in nature. A
complex mineral that discusses semiotics or a planet that has figured
out how to duplicate itself.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to