From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!ames!olivea!news.bbn.com!noc.near.net!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!orourke Wed Feb  5 11:56:24 EST 1992
Article 3418 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!ames!olivea!news.bbn.com!noc.near.net!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <42598@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 92 00:26:51 GMT
References: <12183@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 17

In article <12183@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>...What I meant by 8 is
>
>8b. There isn't any theory or argument that can show any sort of
>relationship between consciousness and the particular syntactic
>manipulations that the computer is using.
>
>What I was looking for in this discussion is an argument that would
>make 8 false.  Needless to say, I have been sorely disapointed.

Your expectations are unrealistic.  Afterall, there isn't any theory 
or argument that can show any sort of relationship between consciousness and 
the particular neurochemical manipulations that humans use.  The only
reason to believe that consciousness can arise from neurochemistry
is that we know it does.  We have no understanding of how.  In the
face of our ignorance, it seems premature to hold rigidly that X cannot
give rise to consciousness. 


