On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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

Or, maybe it's ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger

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