On 30 July 2014 02:30, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:22 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> whatever a computer does is "just" the movement of electrons around >>>> circuits >>>> >>> >>> >> And whatever a human brain does is "just" the movement of molecules >>> and ions around neurons. That word "just" sure covers a lot! >>> >> >> > Hence the quote marks. Don't worry I "just" love being quoted out of >> context. >> > > I wasn't trying to criticize you, I understand that you were using the > word "just" in the same way I was. >
Sorry. I often feel as though I've made some *faux pas* while trying to put my viewpoint, and tend to get a bit touchy sometimes as a result. > > > If that proves a computer can't be conscious then it also proves that >>> humans aren't conscious; and except for me maybe that's the case. >>> >> >> > It supposedly proves that the materialist paradigm doesn't explain >> consciousness >> > > Then it also explains why a human being can never be conscious, but I know > for a fact that at least one human being is. And if changing the material > in my brain changes my consciousness (and it most certainly does) and > changes in consciousness changes the material in my brain (and it most > certainly does) then in what sense does materialism fail to explain > consciousness? > The question here is whether it changes consciousness itself, or the contents of consciousness - and of course whether there is any difference between the two. Suppose for the sake of argument that in order to be conscious, people needed a Descartes-style spirit to be attached to their brains. Then materialism would explain the experiences that this spirit had, but not the existence of consciousness itself, which by hypothesis requires this supernatural extra. I don't consider this likely, but it illustrates the distinction. Is consciousness something extra that has to be added before anyone can be aware of anything (rather than merely being a p-zombie) or is it just some sort of construct or illusion? (Since today doesn't have an 'R' in I will plump for the latter if forced...) > > > according to comp >> > > I can't comment on that, "comp" means whatever Bruno wants it to mean, and > that changes from day to day. > Here I respectfully disagree, he seems more or less consistent to me, give or take the odd ambiguity due to English not being his first language. But I have to admit that I have yet to grok comp in its entirety. -- 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/d/optout.
