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

On Sep 30, 12:10 am, c...@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) wrote:

I keep calling your type of belief magical because
you think there's something else there (much like a
ghost) that needs to be explained when there's
nothing there to explain.

That is simply not true and dishonest. You know full
well I don't think there is something else there.
That is all in your head and a cop out for not being
able to explain the stripes in the rainbow, instead
you chant "it is nothing but light, it is nothing but
light if you don't understand that you must believe
it is magic sauce"


It's as if I showed you the bent pencil in water
illusion and tried to explain to you the pencil is
not bent, but you refused to accept it.

Again a dishonest comparison of what I have asked. If
you showed me the bent pencil in the water illusion
I would ask why it *appeared* to be bent. You have
not explained that because you don't have the answer.

< snip claims of "explanations" >

...

The illusion would become obvious to anyone who
was given enough time with such a machine just like
the true nature of the pencil illusion becomes
obvious once you have enough time to play with it.

The true nature of the pencil illusion does not
become obvious. The true nature of the illusion is
in the bending of light at the air/water interface.
Ask the native spear fisherman to explain the
illusion, I bet they can't.

The true nature of a rainbow's illusion of being
made up of stripes, or that when you move the
rainbow moves, is not obvious. People who haven't
done basic physics do not understand the illusions.

Your answer would be "it is nothing but light, it
is all an illusion nothing else need be explained".
And if someone protested that was not an explanation
you would retort, "clearly you must believe in a
magic sauce for the stripes and apparent motion."
That is a dishonest reply hiding your ignorance
of the physics involved and trying to suggest it
is the other person who is the dim bulb.

...


It doesn't take an Einstein to understand that
consciousness is an illusion.

But it takes an Einstein to explain the mechanisms
in the machine that produce the illusion. If you
really understood you could give us the blueprints
for the brain.


Many people have figured this out for themselves.


No they haven't. They may, like you, simply *believe*
it is an illusion and they in fact be right but they
don't explain it.


There have been many books published on the subject
by people far more qualified to explain than I am
(like Dennett). Didn't you say you had read his book?
If you still don't understand it, try reading it again.

I sure did read it. And I also have read critical reviews
on the book by his peer group. Unlike you he has a good
try at the problem.

I have also read many other writers including for example
"The Astonishing Hypothesis" Francis Crick and "Phantoms
in the Brain" Ramachandran and many others who look
deeply into the possible mechanics behind this conscious
illusion, who really try and untangle the *physical*
workings of the rainbow.

You obviously aren't getting anywhere by reading
my posts.


Because your post consist of nothing buts. You explain
nothing. You do not have any interest in what constitutes
a scientific explanation you simply state your beliefs.
You didn't even take up my point on the logic regarding
the properties of wholes and their parts.


It's certainly beyond my ability to even explain to
you that it is an illusion let alone explain to
why we have the illusion (both of which I understand
and have tried to explain to you many times already).


And what is there to understand from your non explanations?
You simply make statements of belief like the clergy.
All you repeat, ad nauseam, is consciousness is an illusion
without explanations and if any one dare ask for an
explanation they clearly believe in magic sauce. And you
make statements about why you believe people have this
illusion, conditioning. And you say you can exorcise this
ghost by conditioning yourself to believe otherwise.
This is called auto suggestion and is used in religion
to form beliefs.

If anyone wants to have a serious analysis of the
mechanics of the AI you go blank, claim it is nothing
but a reinforcement machine and all we need to do is
somehow, without any further analysis, work out how
to build such a machine.

Well I had no problem with your desire to build a general
purpose reinforcement machine, something that occurred to
early researchers a long long time ago, and they have,
unlike you worked hard on the mechanics of the problem.
I have also read their books. Again they do not simply
say it is "nothing but" and they do engage in a real
analysis without saying "there is nothing more to explain".

Let me assure you that repeating something a hundred
times might work on changing your beliefs or the beliefs
of the congregation in a church and making false statements
about what non-believers believe and declaring them
unable to understand may work for you but it isn't science.

--
JC


.

Relevant Pages

  • buddha learns a teaching lesson ? [ Re: 5,000 years longetivity
    ... explanation, i. e., the unknowable 'eternal' ... if indeed it is all illusion, ... sell books in Englishwhich are comparatively rare. ... most major cities and usenet itself is ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Re: Didnt Get IT!
    ... The explanation for the world around us is lost in some sort of ... The first possibility leads to scientific advancement, ... variations of these. ... illusion is that there is no way *in *principle of telling them apart. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Heres a possibility,but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecandoit
    ... Theory is an explanation of existing facts. ... determines the validity of the illusion. ... <snip more stuff> ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lunar Illusion
    ... > illusion was that there is a frame of reference near the ground and not ... This explanation is generally held to be the most likely. ... then the "size" of the moon is dependant on ... Are you suggesting that a stereograph will reproduce the image scale of the ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Is consciousness an illusion?
    ... Is existence an illusion? ... For what it is worth, I am very inclined to agree ... there is still a reality out there that follows rules. ... My beliefs alone will not ...
    (talk.origins)