On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:36:31 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 19 February 2014 16:18, Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > > I'm making a case for reductionism. If biochemistry necessarily leads to >> consciousness then I don't think this is any different to the situation >> where biochemistry necessarily leads to life. > > > OK, I think you're making a case for it in a very generalised way, > without, for example, committing necessarily to any particular ontological > "ground floor". And as you said before, it leaves us with rather more > explaining to do in the case of consciousness than that of life, with the > usual caveats about the dangers inherent in any appeal to personal > incredulity. > > If we imagine that the biochemistry is all there but no > consciousness that would be like imagining that the biochemistry is all > there but no life (which Craig can apparently do). > > That would be mysterious indeed. >
Not really. A graphic automata could be constructed to resemble biochemical interactions rather than a standard Conway's game of life, without any kind of life going on (assuming that comp fails). Craig > > David > > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
