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

On Sep 28, 10:20 am, forbisga...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:14 am, Wolf Kirchmeir <ElLoboVi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





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.)

Erm, the material of a ball does affect its bounciness. Drop a rubber
ball and a plasticine one, and see... ;-)- Hide quoted text -

Yeah, that the idea. Now tell me. Where is the same experiment
for consciousness?


There have been experiments that seem to relate to
what we call consciousness such as the experiments
done by Benjamin Libet, those with split brain subjects,
and blind sight and so on ...

Some images that can be seen two ways such as the
Necker cube or the faces or the vase and so on seem
to indicate there is only one object of consciousness.

Then there is the temporal limit of being conscious
of two events below which the events meld as one.
Or the temporal limit of melding a sequence of events
as a single conscious unit which appears to be up to
three seconds.

Another observation I mentioned in other posts was
the limit of short term memory to an average of seven
items may actually be a temporal limit.

This is something I couldn't understand about Curt's
stance on the subject as being "nothing but moving
atoms" which although may be true doesn't explain in
what way it is "nothing but moving atoms" any more
than explaining how an engine works by saying it is
nothing but moving physical parts.

Maybe these gross over simplifications (or powers of
abstraction as Curt seems to view these "explanations")
is what attracts people to radical behaviorism where
something like "praise" or " beauty" is nothing but
a stimulus, no more explanations required!

--
JC


.

Relevant Pages