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

On Sep 29, 7:48 am, c...@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) wrote:
JGCASEY <jgkjca...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:46 pm, c...@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) wrote:
Is this your logic?

human brains have conscious awareness
human brains have temporal matching circuits
therefore temporal matching circuits have conscious awareness


temporal matching circuits have conscious awareness
curt's circuits are temporal matching circuits
therefore curt's circuits have conscious awareness



Except for the couple of books worth of details you
left out, sure, that's the overall logic.


Perhaps you could enlighten me on the logic for
it appears to me that the first part of the above
commits the fallacy of division?

"The fallacy of Division is committed when a person
infers that what is true of a whole must also be
true of its constituents and justification for that
inference is not provided."

Examples given in articles on logic:

"Because the brain is capable of consciousness,
each neural cell in the brain must be capable
of consciousness."

"The ball is blue, therefore the atoms that
make it up are also blue."

"Sodium chloride (table salt) may be safely
eaten. Therefore its constituent elements,
sodium and chloride, may be safely eaten."

and so on ...

Is the justification for your inference contained
in the details you say I have left out?

Perhaps you could provide some of these details
as I don't know what they are.

--
JC

.

Relevant Pages