On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:17 AM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stathis, I am afraid you took the "easy way out".
> Let me interject in ITALICS into your post-text below
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>
>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:41 AM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Stathis!!!!!!!!!!! (See after your remark) - John M
>> > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
>> > <stath...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
>> >> proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
>> >> simulated by a computer.
>> > ================================
>> >> Firstly: did we agree in a working identification of 'conscious'?
>> It's a mysterious thing you know you have when you have it. For the
>> purposes of this discussion that suffices.
> Please do not denigrate "THIS DISCUSSION"! you THINK you know,
> when you THINK you have it. I rather state my ignorance.
Are you unsure if you're conscious?
>> > Secondly: is such 'conscious' phenomenon PHYSICAL?
>> It appears to be associated with or supervene on or be caused by
>> certain brain processes, since when those brain processes are present
>> consciousness (whatever it is) is also present, and when those brain
>> processes are not present consciousness is not present.
> ASSOCIATED WITH, or SUPERVENE ON? that is our human addition to
> ideas we generate. "Caused by" is totally imaginary.
Do you deny that there is even an APPEARANCE of an association or
supervenience or causation?
>> > Thirdly: do we know ALL (even restricted to 'physical(?)') movements
>> > of
>> > (all) the parts of the brain involved in mental actiity to state ALL
>> > their
>> > movements can be simulated by a computer?
>> No, we can't be sure. There may be non-computable physical processes
>> in the universe. But the evidence is that physics is computable.
> What I meant was different: in the present phase of our gathering of
> information we must be sure NOT to know ALL movements of mental
> activity so our (embryonic) computers cannot simulate them all.
> Is your "evidence" based on our nomenclature of a computable physics?
> In my (tentative) ID for Ccness (response to relations) non-brainfunction-
> based responses (call them physical?) are also observable. Hence my
> questioning of the adjective 'conscious'. - T H A T - may be PHYSICAL
> (ha ha) - of course also 'mental' (=ideational).
That the brain is computable means only that the physics determining
the brain's observable behaviour can be simulated by a computer with
an arbitrarily large amount of memory. But nothing is implied about
the technical feasibility of this.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at