On Mar 2, 7:46 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 8:12 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> You do assume, though, that brain function can't be replicated by a
> >> machine.
> > No, I presume that consciousness is not limited to what we consider to
> > be brain function. Brain function, as we understand it now, is already
> > a machine.
> You've moved on since I discussed this with you a few months ago,
> since then you claimed that brain function (i.e. observable function
> or behaviour) could not be replicated by machine.

No, there's no change. Brain function consists of physiological
processes, but physiology is too broad and generic to resolve subtle
anthropological processes. Eventually any machine replication will be
exposed to some human observer. This is because the idea of
'observable function or behavior' presumes a universal observer or
absolute frame of reference, which I have no reason to entertain as
legitimate. Are these words made of English letters or black pixels or
RGB pixels...colorless electrons..? A machine can produce the
electrons, the pixels, the letters, but not the cadence, the ideas,
the fluid presence of a singular voice over time. These are subtle
kinds of considerations but they make a difference over time. Machines
repeat themselves in an unnatural way. They are tone deaf and socially
awkward. They have no charisma. It shows. Brains have no charisma
either, so reproducing their function does not reproduce that. It is
the character which drives the brain function, not the other way

> If you now accept
> this, the further argument is that it is not possible to replicate
> brain function without also replicating consciousness.

No, you're missing my argument now as you have in the past.

> This is valid
> even if it isn't actually possible to replicate brain function. We've
> discussed this before and I don't think you understand it.

I understand your argument from the very beginning. I debate people
about it all week long with the same view exactly. It's by far the
most popular position I have encountered online. It is the
conventional wisdom wisdom position. There is nothing remotely new or
difficult to understand about it.


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