From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!idtg!dow Thu Dec 26 23:56:57 EST 1991
Article 2257 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!idtg!dow
>From: dow@idtg.UUCP (Keith Dow)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle's response to silicon brain?
Message-ID: <360@idtg.UUCP>
Date: 18 Dec 91 21:50:50 GMT
References: <40822@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1991Dec18.193242.10535@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Integrated Device Technology, Santa Clara
Lines: 38

>Still, I think that this can be turned into an argument against
>Searle that has some force.  First, we have to replace the neurons
>one by one instead of all at once.  Second, we can allow that
>instead of replacing them by silicon, we can replace them by
>*anything* that's functionally equivalent -- including a
>Chinese-room-style simulation of a neuron that computes the neuron's
>output as a function of its input, and is linked to synaptic
>transmissions in the appropriate way.  In replacing the neurons,
>each time a pair of connected simulated neurons comes up, we can
>dispense with their synaptic connection altogether and simulate it,
>as well.  Eventually we arise at a Chinese-room style simulation of
>the whole nervous system, connected to the world via input/output
>receptors.  Of course the details have to be spelt out a lot better
>than this, but you get the idea.





Sounds like a brilliant idea!  Another thing you might consider is
making a silicon brain that is identical to a human brain and swaping
parts (neurons) one by one.  Each time you swap a part, ask Searle which
is human and which is a machine.   Also, ask him how he knows since the two
function identically.
















