On 9/13/2012 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:15:56 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:

    On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Craig Weinberg
    <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote:

        > I reject comp, because it cannot access feelings or qualities

    And you have deduced this by using the "nothing but" fallacy: even
    the largest computer is "nothing but" a collection of on and off
    switches. Never mind that your brain is "nothing but" a collection
    of molecules rigorously obeying the laws of physics.

Not at all. From my perspective, it's obviously you who assumes that the brain is "nothing but" a collection of molecules. I don't assume at all that computers are limited by our description of them, just as stuffed animals I'm sure contain microcosmic worlds of styrofoam and dust mites, thermodynamic interiorities of God-know-what sorts of qualitative experiences. What I don't assume is that a Beanie Baby of a dragon is actually having the experience that we imagine a dragon should have.

This is the symbol grounding problem pointed out by Searle's Chinese Room, the China Brain, and Leibniz Mill Argument, and which I demonstrate easily by saying "These words do not refer to themselves." or "This sentence does not speak English".

It's hard for me to understand why this seems obscure to anyone who is familiar with these issues, but at this point I suspect it is like color blindness or gender orientation.

To review: My understanding is that the word computer does not refer to any real system, but rather it is a concept about how real systems can be controlled. It's like saying 'storyteller'. There is nothing that it is made of or experiences that it has. Experience depends on real interactions of matter, energy, space, and time, which are experienced as perception and participation. You can't park a real car (human experience) in a map of a parking lot (computer simulation). I understand completely that it is thrilling to imagine that the map is actually the reality, and the car is only a figment of the statistical model of 'parkingness', and I agree that this way of looking at things gives us useful insights and control, but it is ultimately a catastrophic failure when taken literally and applied to living beings - as bad as religious ideology.


      John K Clark

What would be the logical complement of "nothing but _____"? Could it be: "All except ___"?




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