From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!jethro!exodus!appserv!orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM!silber Tue Nov 26 12:31:26 EST 1991
Article 1492 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!jethro!exodus!appserv!orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM!silber
>From: silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: birds, bees, and epiphenomena
Message-ID: <1136@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 18 Nov 91 20:47:36 GMT
Sender: news@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 80

In article <1991Nov17.032817.5528@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <5706@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> 
>rohan@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Rohan Baxter) writes:
>
...
>
>RB:
>>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. 
>
>Agreed.
>
>RB:
>>I wouldn't then conclude that only charlatans will come up with further
>>explanations, particularly if they find the current theoretical 
>>(non)-explanations faulty
>
>This is most manifestly noot my claim; as far as I am concerned, the
>problem with people like Dennett, aside from what I consider to be the
>anti-humanistic orientation of their claims, is the intellectual dishonesty
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>with which they dismiss any argument that casts a doubt on the fundamental
>assumptions of their project.  In particular, McGinn has stated very
>clearly that AI theorists have failed to even address the issue of how
>consciousness could, in principle, emerge from the computational properties
>of the brain; yet, to the best of my knowledge, not a single AI theorist
>has deigned to answer his objection.
>
 
 Well if it ain't "computation" (whatever THAT is) and if it ain't 
 dissembodied platonic form (whatever THAT is), then what IZZ it?
 When y'all done killt that b'ar 'n shot 'em clean through the BRAIN,
 he ain't never goin' to dream 'bout no beehive again!

 Now if y'all experts cain't agree how it works, c'n y'all mebe agree
 on where it's seated.  We country folk normally think that MIND is
 a-phenomenon-of OR an epiphenomenon-of OR a meta-phenomenon-of
 THE BRAIN !!!


nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF
nullbytesforrnfunctionF


