From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers Thu Dec 26 23:58:32 EST 1991
Article 2401 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Subject: Re: Ignore QM and be happy
Message-ID: <1991Dec25.043314.19060@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
References: <1991Dec24.054745.16805@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <61056@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 04:33:14 GMT
Lines: 21

In article <61056@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>Why don't you?  You've surveyed all possible chemical reactions and
>identified them as being computable?

>From my original posting on this topic:

  The argument won't have any force against those who believe that
  neural function is non-computable, or that neurons aren't
  responsible for the causation of behaviour, but Searle's argument
  is supposed to be independent of those considerations.

I'm not (here) concerned with establishing that brain function is
computable.  Rather, I'm concerned with the question raised by
Searle's Chinese room argument: whether, given that brain function
is computable, a simulation would be conscious.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."


