Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- From: tvashtar <tvashtar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:16:24 -0000
On Sep 26, 9:44 am, JGCASEY <jgkjca...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The mental world and the physical world are not
the same and there is such a thing as a first person
observation that is not third person observable.
The mental world only exists as neural activity in a
brain just as the virtual reality world only exists as
electronic switching activity in a computer.
The physical world always exists and its reality or
nature remains unchanged and doesn't require a mental
world to exist.
Well think of it this way, all existence is interpretation. The
physical world has as its substrate the elemental particles. The
mental world has as its substrate electrical and chemical interactions
between neurons (which obviously belong to the physical world).
The mental world by contrast depends on the physical
world to exist and its nature is changed by changes
in the physical world.
Yes, the mental world is an abstraction built upon the physical world.
If the mental world is a computer program, the physical world supplies
the logic gates.
Subjective experiences (the mental world) such as
"seeing red" or "feeling pain" have no existence
independent of activities in the brain. The physical
world has no "red" it has no "pain". They are
descriptions of how things behave not descriptions
of what things are. They are properties of the mental
world which in turn depends upon the physical world
to exist.
But isn't every experience subjective? And if so how can we be sure
there is a physical world?
The physical world is limited by the laws of physics
whereas the mental world, although dependent for its
existence on the parts that make up the physical
world and how they interact, is not limited by the
laws of physics as demonstrated by any cartoon movie.
Well we don't expect the same rules which governed the creation of a
microchip to effect the completeness of the instruction set it
provides (which is presumably complete, allowing any possible
computation to be performed). I suppose one wonders whether is is
losing track of what's important to set up the mental as being the key
abstraction which brings the physical to life - is it not possible
that the mental world we perceive is simply an after effect of a
deterministic, algorithmic process? I know language is clumsy in this
respect, but I feel it is a mistake to forget that in many ways our
brain is no more alive, or mental, than a rock. It is a hard
deterministic interaction of particles and forces. I realise that
can't be proven, but it seems strange to me that Searle sees the brain
as having some magic.
.
- 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
- 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: JGCASEY
- 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
|
