Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- From: JGCASEY <jgkjcasey@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:33:09 -0700
On Sep 26, 12:41 am, tvashtar <tvash...@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.
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.
The philosophical implications of Searle's argument
are somewhat lost on me, inability to abstract I guess :)
I'm not sure what you mean by "non-scientific" process,
I assume you mean a process not accessible to science?
For me the systems reply seems to work. The ability to
understand Chinese is an ability of the system of people
+ rules working as a whole not the parts of the system.
It is confusing the property of the parts, a person and
a set of rules to follow, and the whole, how they all
work together so the whole can understand Chinese.
Just as the parts, logic gates, cannot by themselves
do arithmetic, for it is a property of the whole which
is defined not by the parts alone but how they are
connected and work together.
A neuron cannot understand Chinese anymore than the
people in Searle's argument need understand Chinese.
But the brain (the whole) can understand Chinese.
--
JC
.
- 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
|
