On 2/13/2012 11:36 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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.

So you say.

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 
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

But they have ground.


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