On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
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 [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.
