Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- From: forbisgaryg@xxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:22:08 -0700
On Sep 26, 2:16 am, tvashtar <tvash...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well think of it this way, all existence is interpretation.
Are you some kind of mystic?
If you are doing science then the philosophy of science define
the rules of engagement. Where do find a rule in the philosophy
of science that says that which exists can change based upon
interpretation?
.
- 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
- 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
|
