On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> No, he does NOT assume this. He assumes the opposite: that
>> consciousness is a property of the brain and CANNOT be reproduced by
>> reproducing the behaviour in another substrate.
> I'm not talking about what the structure of the thought experiment assumes,
> I am talking about what David Chalmers himself assumed before coming up with
> the paper. We have been over this before. I'm not saying I disagree with the
> reasoning of the thought experiment, I am saying that I see a mistake in the
> initial assumptions which invalidate the thought experiment in the first
> place.

The validity of a proof is not dependent on the beliefs, habits or
psychology of its author!

>> But since you misunderstand the first assumption you misunderstand the
>> whole argument.
> Nope. You misunderstand my argument completely.

Perhaps I do, but you specifically misunderstand that the argument
depends on the assumption that computers don't have consciousness. You
also misunderstand (or pretend to) the idea that a brain or computer
does not have to know the entire future history of the universe and
how it will respond to every situation it may encounter in order to
function. What are some equivalently simple, uncontroversial things in
what you say that i misunderstand?

Stathis Papaioannou

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