On Feb 13, 12:05 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> 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


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