From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Wed Oct 14 14:58:15 EDT 1992
Article 7177 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.050027.5957@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1992Oct6.204155.13168@meteor.wisc.edu> <1992Oct8.230422.5045@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> <1992Oct9.040228.2117@meteor.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:00:27 GMT
Lines: 42

In article <1992Oct9.040228.2117@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.230422.5045@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.204155.13168@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:

>>>Those who insist on defending its existence should come
>>>up with plausible arguments as to what makes them believe that the sequence
>>>of rule-implementations could be conscious, when clearly no individual
>>>rule-implementation can be.
>
>>It isn't clear to me.
>
>Wow, this business sure leads to some surprising assertions! Are you saying
>that a flip-flop changing state or a neuron firing are conscious?

Yes, indeed, there are some surprising assertions.  For example you are
apparently asserting that every individual rule-implementation is
equivalent to a flip-flop changing state.

>>You have advanced Searle's argument as an argument in favor
>>of substance dualism (it is not, and Searle says so). 
>
>I have advanced it for what it is, an argument against the equivalence
>of consciousness and algorithmic processing.

Wow!  Another surprising assertion.  I don't know of anyone who believes
that consciousness and algorithmic processing are equivalent.  Equivalence
would imply that any algorithmic computation whatsoever, even the addition
to two numbers, produces consciousness.  It would also imply that any
conscious creature is algorithmic.  Do you normally debate by attacking
a completely preposterous interpretation of the opposing position?

>            I still think that consciousness cannot arise from manipulation
>of symbols, because the symbols have no meaning without a consciousness
>attributing meaning.

But that is not a valid argument.  If the algorithmic program creates
consciousness, then that consciousness might use symbols to which it
attributes meaning.  You are apparently making the fallacious assumption
that the symbols used by this consciousness must of necessity also be
symbols known to the algorithm which creates the consciousness.  There
is no valid reason to make such an assumption.



