From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!amnell Mon Oct 19 16:59:02 EDT 1992
Article 7263 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!amnell
>From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Simulated Brain
Message-ID: <1992Oct13.085347.13831@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 13 Oct 92 08:53:47 GMT
References: <1992Oct12.130804.18065@sophia.smith.edu> <1992Oct12.191445.18565@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1992Oct12.221609.15695@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Oct12.224008.16222@news.media.mit.edu>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 24

In <1992Oct12.224008.16222@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu 
(Marvin Minsky) writes:

> In other words, does Searle suggest any reason why the mind-stuff is
>secreted by the hydrocarbons -- rather than the equally plausible (and
>more widely believed) hypothesis that the breath of life comes
>directly from the Good Lord?

I don't know about Searle, but how do you discount the possibility that
some undiscovered biological microstructure plays a crucial role in
consciousness, and that no non-Carbon based substitute could replace
it? (Another gem after p.300 of TSoM? :-)  I mean, our present understanding
of life, brains and matter is so sketchy that strong AI seems like pure
speculation to me.  I'm open to the possibility that a machine
(conceived of in the reductionist way you suggest) could think, but does
this automatically mean that its mind would be imbued with the same
conscious experiences that accompany our thoughts, in all their wondrous
splendour?  What I'm saying is that maybe machines could one day think,
but they still wouldn't be conscious in the way we are.

-- 
Marko Amnell
amnell@klaava.helsinki.fi
Graduate Student in Philosophy


