Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- From: curt@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch)
- Date: 25 Sep 2007 16:51:12 GMT
tvashtar <tvashtar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
It's uncovered a basic foundational difference of opinion in the two major
camps of consciousness. It works much like a Rorschach inkblot test in
that the argument really has no meaning or message in of itself. Instead,
it simply reflects your own beliefs. It's a mirror which will expose the
personal beliefs of anyone who reads it, and attempts to argue for it, or
against it. It's really quite magical in that respect. Both sides see is
supporting evidence of their own personal beliefs where in fact, it proves,
or says, nothing of substance. It's manged to generate endless debate
without producing any resolution of any important issues.
The problem of consciousness comes from the fact that we currently have no
easy way to verify, for ourselves, what it is. No one yet knows (for sure)
what the nature of their own mental powers are. We don't have any proof
where they come from, or what they are made of. We only have speculation
guiding our search for answers.
Without a way to know what it is, we are each free to believe whatever we
want to believe. Given this choice, people seem to naturally be attracted
two one of two major options. Either consciousness is nothing more than
the behavior of computer-like device (our brain), or it's something more
interesting and complex.
Which camp you fall into depends on how attracted or replied you are by
these two options. Few people that have thought about the issue seem to in
the middle of the road. Must find themselves stuck to one side of the
argument or another.
As a computer guy who really wants to build computers that are equal to
humans, I'm very attracted to the idea that all the magic of human mental
powers is reducible to the operation of a simple machine (the brain) that
we will be able to understand with a bit more work. I love working with
machines of all types so I have no aversion to the idea that I am nothing
more than an advanced computer-like machine. I'm attracted to the idea.
In the other camp, we find those people who are more attracted to the
possibility that consciousness is a mystery. Either they out right hate
(and refuse to accept) the idea that humans are just deterministic
machines, or they are simply attracted to the idea that consciousness is
something mysterious. They enjoy the idea of a good mystery more so than
they enjoy a simple reductionist answer - they like the fact that there's a
mystery to be explored.
Some of us, think humans are really special (maybe - if we are lucky -
beyond the ability of science to understand), and some of us, think humans
aren't all that special at all (that the cold and unemotional tools of
science will soon reveal that humans, at the core, are cold unemotional
deterministic machines).
The Chinese room is just an inkblot test which shows people our true
feelings if you let yourself get stuck in it's sticky web. It's had to
resist the debate.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- From: tvashtar
- Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- From: Curt Welch
- Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- From: tvashtar
- Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- Prev by Date: Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- Next by Date: Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- Previous by thread: Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- Next by thread: Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
