75c505b9   
   From: kcalder@blueyonder.co.uk   
      
   In message   
   ,   
   ghost  writes   
   >In article <37E17TXzoK1AFw3J@cableinet.co.uk>,   
   > Kevin Calder  wrote:   
      
   >[clipped message ... would be redundant]   
      
   Oki.   
      
   >Assumption: Consciousness can only be attained by organic sentient   
   >matter (Brain).   
      
   Er, no.  More like, as far as know, consciousness is a property of   
   brains, presumably something to do with their composition and activity.   
      
   >Assumption: Consciousness can not be attained by inorganic sentient   
   >matter (Computer) or (non)organic non-sentient matter   
   >(Animal/Plant/Everything Else).   
      
   No.  Try: what possible reason could we have for believing that   
   computers and rocks are consciousness?   
      
   How do brains "attain" consciousness?  Searle is not arguing this,   
   rather he is arguing that consciousness is a property of brains.   
      
   If Searle is assuming anything it is:   
      
   Assumption:  Strong AI thesis claims that computational simulations of   
   brain activity will be conscious.   
      
   Searle, doesn't believe that this is justified.   
      
   (BTW, if you hadn't clipped me your paraphrases might not have been so   
   off the mark.)   
      
   >If Brain and Computer act in all ways similar, are sentient and   
   >cognistant   
      
   Im not sure which definitions you are using, but I think that sentience   
   and cognisance require consciousness, so I'm going to ignore them,   
   otherwise we are just saying "If brain is conscious, then why does brain   
   not gain consciousness?"   
      
   > of the world, and react to the world as you would expect any   
   >entity to react to the world today (social norms, etc.. say a 15 yr old   
   >in whichever given part of the world you are in) why does the Computer   
   >not gain conciousness?   
      
   For the same reason that the symbol shuffler in the Chinese room doesn't   
   understand the Chinese letters he is manipulating, despite that fact   
   that from the point of view of those outside the room he appears to be   
   able to converse fluently in Chinese.   
      
   Ghost, you do not experience conscious states merely because you exhibit   
   the behavioural characteristics of something that experiences conscious   
   states, you are conscious because you have an organ in your skull which   
   is producing your conscious states.   
      
   >I norder for Searle's arguement to work (and I'm being scientific) he   
   >has to define both Brain and Consciousness. Brain, it seems from what   
   >you have put forth, is that chunk of flesh in the human skull (the   
   >afformentioned "organic sentient matter") and non-brain is everything   
   >else.   
      
   Ok.   
      
   >Also, we need to define Consciousness.   
      
   Absolutely!  Searle is very keen on this.   
      
   > In order to be scientific we will   
   >need a more concrete definition than "unique aspect of chesmitry   
   >exhibited by human brain proccesses."   
      
   Definitely.  Consciousness, IMHO, isn't quite the mystery that we   
   sometimes like to believe it is.  Searle points out that it isn't   
   unusual to begin a scientific study with rough definitions which are,   
   over the course of the study, improved upon immeasurably.   
      
   > It begs several questions 1) What   
   >is unique about it? 2) what (measureable) quality limits it only to the   
   >human brain?   
      
   These seem like neuroscience questions to me, but I am no expert.   
      
   > 3) what aspect of the chemistry cannot be simulated outside   
   >the reaction chamber (skull) mathematically?   
      
   Oh stop it.  We have been over this mistake already.   
      
   You could certainly simulate consciousness, in the same way that you can   
   simulate digestion, but simulations of consciousness and digestion *are   
   not* consciousness and digestion.   
      
   >Until those questions (and I'm sure more than I could think of) are   
   >answered a statement such as "Consciousness cannot be attained outside   
   >the limits of the Human Brain"   
      
   What is this "attainment"?  Do you "attain" digestion when you eat   
   pizza? Does it seem strange to you that you cannot digest things, except   
   using your stomach?   
      
      
   > are so limiting as to prevent any   
   >meaningful research. Research that must be started from a measuring   
   >point and hopefully simulated with increasing degrees of accuracy until   
   >the simulation reaches the level of the actual and becomes one in the   
   >same.   
      
   I don't think that is necessary at all.   
      
   Computational models will undoubtedly perform an essential role in the   
   study of the mind.  However, models of fluid dynamics do not have the   
   property of "fluidity", because they are models of fluids, not fluids   
   themselves.  Why is this distinction so hard to grasp?   
      
   >The statements are very bigoted and hint at Megalomania   
      
   Well, you said em.   
      
   >Until Searles can quantigy Consciousness and isolate the exact factors   
   >stating no other entity can attain it is   
      
   Well, he is open to the idea that man made brains could possess   
   consciousness, provided they were brains, and not just simulations of   
   brains.   
      
   --   
   Kevin Calder   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)