On Feb 13, 12:05 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > It doesn't apply to us because we exist in an environment (where there are > spades and > soil). It doesn't apply to the Chinese room either, because there is a world > outside the > room in which Chinese is spoken and children are taught Chinese ostensively > and by example.
You know there is a world outside the room, but the room doesn't. The room doesn't know anything. > > This goes to my point that, in spite of ones feeling of separation, > consciousness exists > relative to an environmental context. The successful substitution of a > silicon based AI > module for part (or even all) of a brain depends on its interaction with the > environment. If it's only a part of the brain, then a silicon module could act as a prosthetic. The more of the brain you replace though, the less is left to make use of anything. The problem with talking about 'context' and 'interaction' as entities divorced from any concrete orientation is the same issue brought up with the symbol grounding problem. There is no 'there' there. Environments and interactions are conceptual generalizations. They have no interiority, no perspective or orientation. Craig -- 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.
