On Dec 20, 1:13 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 5:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:> On Dec 19, 6:08 pm,
> meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/19/2011 2:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >>> On Dec 19, 4:26 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> But I think that's where our intuition misleads us. It seems very
> >>>> likely that part or
> >>>> even all of one's brain could be replaced by computer; and that computer
> >>>> could be emulated
> >>>> by a universal digital computer.
> >>> Not to me. Does it seem very likely that part of even all of France
> >>> could be replaced by India? Or robot clones of French people?
> >> They are all replaced every 80yrs or so (some by Algerians).
> > So it should be no problem to replace the brain with bone marrow.
> So long as the functionality is the same.
That's a false equivalence. My example was replacing part of France
with part of India. By oversimplifying that to mean replacing the
citizens only, then straw manning my argument completely by equating
'replacement' with the natural population's growth and mortality, you
come to the erroneous conclusion that a brain transplant is no
different from a kidney transplant. Nobody has ever survived a brain
transplant. As far as we know, a living brain is completely unlike
anything in the universe. I'm not saying the brain is magic, but since
we have way of detecting the degree to which it's 'functionality' is
the same from the outside, the argument that you can do a replacement
of the brain based on functional equivalence is begging the question.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at