Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- From: "Alpha" <OmegaZero2003@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:22:08 -0700
"Curt Welch" <curt@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:20070925125114.152$O0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
....(that the cold and unemotional tools of
science will soon reveal that humans, at the core, are cold unemotional
deterministic machines).
Will "science" then show why the HPTA-axis and support molecules evolved
with no function, fool!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
- 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
- Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- From: Curt Welch
- 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
|