2eea6b3d   
   From: dwalker@cs.rochester.edu   
      
   On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, ded-T wrote:   
      
      
   >   
   > The idea that "consciousness is a function of having a brain" is   
   > almost as silly as "consciousness is a function of having a soul". No   
   > proof, no experimental work, not theory to take to the lab and test--   
   > you just "gotta believe". The viewer of the PTL Club got taken to the   
   > cleaners because of that kind of thing.   
      
   	I would disagree on the actual degree of silliness, because a   
   brain is an organic thing that we can see and observe and experiment on,   
   whereas "the soul" is basically a metaphysical construct rather than a   
   biological entity.  Whether consciousness is inherently biological I   
   couldn't say, but I think it's much less silly to figure that than it is   
   to treat it as a metaphysical result of having a "soul."  In fact I would   
   probably go so far as to say that what we perceive as "the soul" is what   
   we feel as our consciousness, but then we can start talking about zombies   
   and voodoo and all that jazz, which really isn't a path I want to take.   
      
      
   >   
   > Do you have a soul? Do you require one? Do you "require"   
   > consciousness? or is what we mistake for consciousness just the flow   
   > of chemical bonds acting and reacting in random flux?   
   >   
      
   	The more important issue is, do you have *soul* or not.   
      
      
   >   
   > I'm not saying the Strong or Weak AI camps are doing any better. They   
   > are having the problem of trying to "meta-think" about thinking. Maybe   
   > we'll never create an AI... not because it is not feasible, but   
   > because we are not equipped to objectively think about how to design a   
   > thinking machine.   
   >   
      
   	That I would agree on.  I'm somewhat inclined to say that   
   Strong-AI is something of a pipe dream under the Turing model.  Then again   
   my trip is systems and theory, so maybe I'm not the most qualified to   
   speak on that.  But based on computability theory I'd say it would be   
   pretty difficult if not impossible to construct a "conscious machine"   
   following Turing machine rules.  Of course if you want to change the rules   
   to do it, that's fine by me.   
      
      
   >   
   > I believe that I read in  _The Emperor's New Mind_ {i might be   
   > mistaken -- I read way too much and it's been a while since I read   
   > that book] Penrose pointed out that if one were to hold a match to   
   > one's finger the actual electrical propagation time from the finger to   
   > the brain center that reacts to pain is longer than the actual   
   > measured time it takes you [or anyone] to actually react to that kind   
   > of stimulation. In other words it appears you react to stimulation   
   > before the stimulation actually occurs.   
   >   
   > Think about that one for a minute [if I recalled the source   
   > correctly]. That really is spooky physics. Penrose's explanation is   
   > that our brains are "quantum" processors that allow us to act out   
   > reality before it happens and "choose" the state the "wave collapses   
   > into".   
   >   
      
   	Penrose doesn't seem to remember his high school health class.   
   That quick response is the result of a reflex arc with the response center   
   located in the spinal column, not the brain.  If Penrose is trying to pass   
   off a reflex arc as evidence of quantum brain processing, then I've just   
   lost what little respect I had for him.   
      
      
   >   
   > Get over it. We're not special.   
   >   
      
   	Except for cross-posters.  They're beyond special.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)