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

On Sep 29, 3:41 am, smwatt...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 29, 1:49 am, forbisga...@xxxxxxx wrote:





On Sep 28, 10:18 am, tvashtar <tvash...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 28, 1:26 am, forbisga...@xxxxxxx wrote:

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.

I base it very simply on the fact that man kind can reconstruct any
physical system given enough resources and effort. We will very soon
have the ability to properly construct artificial cells, and neurons.
No matter what level consciousness lies on it is reproducible. That is
science my friend, it seems it is you are the one with the religious
faith in the consciousnesses irreducibility.

OK, A hydrogen molecule is a system. Please impelment one without
using hydorgen atoms.

I've worked some pretty big jigsaw puzzles and, you know, it seems
that most only have one solution.

Multiple relizability is an assumption until it is proven so. it is
not a scientific fact in all cases.

Here's the crux, What's to stop me constructing said system using
electrons, neutrons, and protons? Even if a system is tied utterly to
a single material how is it not artificial when rebuilt using that
material? If we construct hydrogen atoms and use those the result is a
manmade implementation. Your argument is like saying: "here's a
wonderful natural lake - reimplement it, but here's the catch: You
can't use water!" That would be ridiculous, and yet we have no problem
speaking of artificial lakes.

Well then,

If your intent is to build "artificial" humans using the method
you propose then I've no problem with your implementation although
others may say there are easier and more fun methods.

Most in this thread want to make claims about computers whose
construction are of different materials than humans.

.

Relevant Pages