From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!qiclab!nosun!hilbert!max Mon Oct 19 16:59:32 EDT 1992
Article 7303 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!qiclab!nosun!hilbert!max
>From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Simulated Brain
Message-ID: <1992Oct15.200604.575@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:06:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: hilbert.1992Oct15.200604.575
References: <26864@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1992Oct14.023633.14791@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Oct14.033233.14444@meteor.wisc.edu>
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Lines: 36

In article <1992Oct14.033233.14444@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>>>>>>> On 12 Oct 92 22:40:08 GMT, minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) said:
>No, nor does anyone propose any reason why subjective experience "emerges"
>by some wierd coincidence from algorithmic processing, independent of
>the nature of the platform, although this bizarre hypothesis has its
>adherents as well. Unfortunately, none of these hypotheses is testable,
>and all have equal standing in science, that is, virtually nil. Or should
>have equal standing, anyway.

Here is why: You have already told us that your hypothesis (consciousness
impossible to explore via scientific techniques) has only one consequence,
namely, itself: no theory of consciousness is possible. Operational
consequence: no exploration made.

If you, or any scientist decides to explore anyway, by that very act
you are operationally assuming that it _is_ possible to come up with
a theory of consciousness, and potentially possible to create one.

Which working hypothesis is likelier to teach us anything? The latter.
The former goes nowhere at all.

Unless you can come up with something better than "I find the idea
disturbing..." or "you haven't come up with anything yet..." your
argument is a total nonstarter.

BTW: Trying to patch up Searle's argument by saying that you find it
"improbable" that it is the interaction between the cpu and the
rules that has the understanding (rather than the human cpu) is to try
to patch up the argument by adding the conclusion as an assumption.

Still waiting for a response to that.


>mt

Max


