Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- From: curt@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch)
- Date: 26 Sep 2007 05:55:33 GMT
forbisgaryg@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 25, 7:41 am, tvashtar <tvash...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, c...@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) wrote:
Is consciousness or awareness third person observable? I don't
think so.
That really is the question which is the foundation of all the debate. I
think consciousness is third person observable because I don't believe
there's anything in a conscious person other than the physical behavior of
their brain.
We just don't have the tools or evidence to prove this belief right or
wrong.
I just don't believe in dualism. It's inconsistent with everything we know
about the universe so I choose to believe we are not dualistic. I believe
that the physical world, and the mental world, are not two separate things,
but that they are one and the same thing.
--
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
- Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- From: forbisgaryg
- 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
|
