From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!bruce!rohan Tue Nov 19 11:10:25 EST 1991
Article 1349 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!bruce!rohan
>From: rohan@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Rohan Baxter)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Daniel Dennett (was Re: Commenting on the pos
Message-ID: <5706@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>
Date: 17 Nov 91 03:37:28 GMT
References: <1991Nov15.003438.11323@grebyn.com> <1991Nov15.160741.5495@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Nov16.014015.1074@yarra-glen.aaii.oz.au> <1991Nov15.234645.5506@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Monash Uni. Computer Science, Australia
Lines: 22


In <1991Nov15.234645.5506@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>(Not that the AI community has given any more courtesy to the arguments of
>Searle, Penrose, and McGinn; so perhaps you are simply trying to honor me
>by treating my modest efforts in the same disdainful manner your colleagues
>have treated those of the above luminaries...)

The historical explanations relating consciousness to the computational 
properties of the brain didn't work and we have some current theoretical
arguments (Penrose, Searle, McGinn) suggesting you cannot. 
I wouldn't then conclude that only charlatans will come up with further
explanations, particularly if they find the current theoretical 
(non)-explanations faulty. 

I would be skeptical about the explanation, considering the complexity of the
problem and our current state of knowledge, but I would also sympathize with
the originator for trying to tackle an important question.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rohan Baxter, rohan@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au


