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

On Sep 27, 11:19 am, tvashtar <tvash...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't see why this is even relevant. What matter if consciousness is
best described as emergent at the atomic, molecular, or logical unit
level - all that matters is that is is recognised that it is an
emergent property of interacting items. No matter what level you
choose to admit the emergence happens, we can conceivably set up an
artificial system to match it.

Upon what do you base this claim? This is where the rubber meets
the road. If you're doing Empirical Science then you will be
able to produce the tests and we can all conduct them. I see
no tests from the lot. All I see are religious assertions that
aren't backed by any evidence at all. That's the lesson of
Searle. Don't tell me you're doing science when you're doing
religion.

.

Relevant Pages