On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:36:31 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 19 February 2014 16:18, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]<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 [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.
