On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 10, 10:27 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> >> wrote: > >> Not a good analogy since the US is not conscious as a single entity. > > How would we know? It's at least as much of a single entity as any > computer.
It's possible that all sorts of systems are conscious without us knowing it but there is no evidence for it. > The brain is not conscious as a single entity either - we are not > conscious of much of what we are doing, let along what our brain is > doing. I don't accept the objection to the analogy and I think we > should continue using it since it reveals the issues specific to > understanding the difference between an entity of millions of quasi- > autonomous living organisms and a logical template being executed > mechanically. > >> Please explain what would you think would happen if you replaced part >> of your brain with an unconscious component that interacted normally >> with the surrounding neurons. Would you say "I feel different" or >> would you say "I feel exactly the same as before"? > > Please explain why you want to keep coming back to this fallacious > example. There is no such thing as a component which interacts > 'normally' when you are talking about a living being. Yes, the natural > part of the brain could notice the difference, but it would not > necessarily notice, depending on how much of the brain was exchanges, > what parts, for how long, how much that part is used by that person at > that time, etc, but above all it would depend on how closely the > replacement part resembled the original. As I have asserted > repeatedly, there is no such thing as a replacement that is > functionally identical to the original without it actually being the > original. That there could be is a radically misinformed assumption > about the nervous system and consciousness which attempts to reduce > the subtlety of the issue to a simplistic logical rubric. You've asserted that only the original could be functionally identical but you haven't explained why you think this: it implies that there is uncomputable physics in the brain, and this goes against the scientific mainstream. If you make such a radical claim you need very good evidence, but I suspect you haven't thought about the implications for physics at all. In any case, I have made the thought experiment simpler by *assuming* that the replacement component is mechanically equivalent to the biological tissue. We can imagine that it is a black box animated by God, who makes it tickle the surrounding neural tissue in exactly the right way. I think installation of such a device would *necessarily* preserve consciousness. What do you think? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
