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
<[email protected] <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.
Craig
John K Clark
What would be the logical complement of "nothing but _____"? Could
it be: "All except ___"?
--
Onward!
Stephen
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
--
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.
