On 10 Feb 2012, at 13:47, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/10/2012 7:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2012/2/10 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
On Feb 10, 4:06 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
> > On Feb 9, 9:49 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > How does a gear or lever have an opinion?
> > > > > The problems with gears and levers is dumbness.
> > > > Does putting a billion gears and levers together in an arrangement > > > > make them less dumb? Does it start having opinions at some point?
> > > Does putting a billions neurons together in an arrangement make them less
> > > dumb ? Does it start having opinions at some point ?
> > No, because neurons are living organisms in the first place, not
> > gears.
> At which point does it start having an opinions ?

At every point when it is alive.

That's not true, does a single neuron has an opinion ? two ? a thousand ?

We may not call them opinions

Don't switch subject.

we use that word to refer to an entire human being's experience, but
the point is that being a living cell makes it capable of having
different capacities than it does as a dead cell.

Yes and so what ? a dead cell *does not* behave like a living cell, that's enough.

When it is dead,
there is no biological sense going on, only chemical detection-
reaction, which is time reversible. Biological sense isn't time

> Why simulated neurons
> couldn't have opinions at that same point ? Vitalism ?

No, because there is no such thing as absolute simulation,

There is no need for an "absolute" simulation... what do you mean by "absolute" ?

there is
only imitation. Simulation is an imitation

no, simulation is not imitation.

designed to invite us to
mistake it for genuine - which is adequate for things we don't care
about much, but awareness cannot be a mistake. It is the absolute
primary orientation, so it cannot ever be substituted. If you make
synthetic neurons which are very close to natural neurons on every
level, then you have a better chance of coming close enough that the
resulting organism is very similar to the original. A simulation which
is not made of something that forms a cell by itself (an actual cell,
not a virtual sculpture of a cell) probably has no possibility of
graduating from time reversible detection-reaction to other categories of sense, feeling, awareness, perception, and consciousness, just as a
CGI picture

A CGI picture *is a picture* not a simulation.

of a neuron has no chance of producing milliliters of
actual serotonin, acetylcholine, glutamate,etc.

Is it needed for consciousness ? why ?


How would your reasoning work for a virus? Is it "alive"? I think that the notion of "being alive" is not a property of the parts but of the whole.

Which is the very basic idea sustaining comp. But Craig seems to defend the opposite idea. He believes that life, sense, and consciousness must be present in the part to sum up in the whole. A mechanist will insist that it is the property of the whole which is responsible for the higher order aptitude, like being able to play chess, or having a private experience.

Yet, the case of "living" and "conscious" are not entirely equivalent, and should be treated differently. The definition of life seems to me conventional, but being conscious is everything but conventional.



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