Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?

On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, c...@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) wrote:
tvashtar <tvash...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm wondering if people out there can shed some light on whether or
not Searle considers consciousness to be a non-scientific process?

I don't consider it to be outside the reach of science because I don't
believe it's anything other than the physical operation of a physical
brain.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
c...@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/

Well I would totally agree, I'm just interested to know how exactly
Searle's argument has become so influential (in exposure if not
acceptance) when it appears (to me at least) to moot the idea of the
brain being somewhat magic.

.

Relevant Pages