On Mar 2, 7:46 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 1, 8:12 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> 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 around. > 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. 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.
