From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!ukma!rutgers!uwvax!meteor!tobis Wed Oct 14 14:58:38 EDT 1992
Article 7211 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!ukma!rutgers!uwvax!meteor!tobis
>From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Message-ID: <1992Oct11.191759.4597@meteor.wisc.edu>
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:17:59 GMT
References: <1992Oct9.040228.2117@meteor.wisc.edu> <BvvGDF.861@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Oct11.154359.2872@meteor.wisc.edu>
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science
Lines: 51

In article <1992Oct11.154359.2872@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>In article <BvvGDF.861@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.040228.2117@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>>...........
>>>of birth and death. My claim is not that consciousness is independent of
>>>brain function. It is only that brain function is insufficient to produce
>>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>consciousness by virtue of any known or plausible objectively verifiable
>>>physical phenomenon. i

>>This is a very strong and totally unsupported statement. 

>It may seem strong to you; to me it seems like a reluctance to make a
>strong statement. As such, there is nothing unsupported about it.

>I did not say that they were known to be insufficient, I said that there
>was no plausible hypothesis how they might be sufficient.

Whoops. Maybe that is not exactly what I said, but it is what I should have
said. Apologies. Actually Mr. Pindor's point is well taken.

I should have quit while I was ahead. These interesting discussions have
given me much to think about, and I should stick to my resolution to
shut up until 1) I am caught up on what I am actually supposed to be doing and
2) I have refined my position to take into account the more meaningful 
criticisms I have encountered here.

However, I stand by the following exchange.

>> Our ignorance
>>does not make them insufficient. It is more plausible to assume our ignorance
>>of how known physical laws combine in such a complex system (there is plenty
>>of evidence of similiar situations in other fields, even less complex) then 
>>invent mysterious, ethereal phenomena for which there is NO evidence.

>As long as you admit that this is an assumption, you are talking science.
>Once you announce that the assumption is verified, you are just appplying
>experience from unrelated areas. That is, you are applying faith in the
>completeness in physical science. There is not the smallest indication
>that the rules of physical science can span the phenomena of consciousness:
>opinions about consciousness are genuinely orthogonal to physical and 
>mathematical science, and that is (in part) why a nonentity can play chess.

>There already is a mysterious ethereal phenomenon: I am it, and I hope
>and suppose you are it too. We proceed from opposite assumptions about
>whether this phenomenon can be reduced to physical science. Neither
>assumption is any stronger or more unsupported than the other, as long
>as we are honest enough to state that our expectations are just that, and
>not results.

mt


