> On 30 Sep 2013, at 11:07 pm, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: > > Stathis > > Could you provide the proof or a link to it? > Richard
It's the Chalmers "Fading Qualia" paper cited before. The paper refers to computer chips replacing neurons. The objection could be made that we do not know for sure that brain physics is computable, and if it isn't, the experiment is impossible. However, that would only show that computationalism was wrong, not the functionalism was wrong. Functionalism is established even if it turns out the neurons are animated by God. >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> On 30 September 2013 22:00, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Yes indeed, and it is compelling. Fading qualia and all that. It's the >> > absurdity of philosophical zombies. >> >> The absurd thing is not philosophical zombies, which are at least >> conceivable, it is partial zombies. >> >> > Those arguments did have an influence on >> > my thinking. On the other hand the idea that we *can* replicate all the >> > brain's outputs remains an article of faith. >> >> Although Chalmers doesn't point this out that I am aware, the argument >> for functionalism is established merely with the *concept* of a >> functionally equivalent brain component. That is, it is logically >> impossible to make such a component that replicates behaviour but does >> not replicate consciousness. >> >> > I remember that almost the >> > first thing I read in Dennett's book was his claim that rich, detailed >> > hallucinations (perceptions in the absence of physical stimuli) are >> > impossible. Dennett is either wrong on this - or a vast body of research >> > into hallucinogens is. Not to mention NDEs and OBEs. Dennett may be right >> > and these reports may all be mistakes and lies, but I doubt it. If he is >> > wrong, the his arguments become a compelling case in quite the opposite >> > sense to what he intended: the brain not as a manufacturer of consciousness >> > but as something more like a receptor. My instinct tells me we don't know >> > enough about the brain or consciousness to be certain of any conclusions >> > derived from logic alone. We may be like Newtonians arguing cosmology >> > without the benefit of QM and relativity. >> >> Remarkably, without knowing anything about how the brain actually >> works, it is possible to prove that it is impossible to replicate its >> observable behaviour without also replicating its consciousness. This >> is a very profound result. >> >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
