Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?

On Sep 27, 5:26 am, forbisga...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 27, 12:30 am, c...@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) wrote:

What I reject as being so unlikely it's not even work talking about (except
for the fact that a huge percentage of the world doesn't reject it so I
keep having to talk about it), is the belief that consciousness is anything
other than just more of the same - the behavior of atoms.

If that were only true. You also reject the notion that consciousness
is the behavior of the atoms. I say this because you hold that
computers
are or can be conscious even though they are composes of completely
different atoms and structures of atoms. You claim that consciousness
rest upon the behviors of sturctures at such a high level that they
are atom type independent (similar to a ball, whose behaviors don't
depend upon rubber for its bounciness.)

A rubber ball behaves differently than a wooden ball in most cases.
The elasticity is important, but you can get the same from a plastic
ball. Consciousness rests on the behavior of structures of the brain
that are independent of the structure of a neuron instead of, for
example, microtubules.

.

Relevant Pages