From: Patrick van den Berg (cirandar@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 14:25:45 GMT
Hi,
> Axioms:
> (A1) Programs are formal (syntactic).
> (A2) Minds have mental contents (semantics).
> (A3) Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for
> semantics.
> (A4) Brains cause minds.
>
> Cinclusions:
> (C1) Programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds.
> (C2) Any other system capable of causing minds would have to have
> causal
> powers (at least) equivalent to those of brains.
> (C3) Any artifact that produced mental phenomena, any artificial
> brain,
> would have to be able to duplicate the specific causal powers of
> brains, and it could not do that just by running a formal
> program.
> (C4) The way that human brains actually produce mental phenomena
> cannot
> be solely by virtue of running a computer program.
>
> he sasys he gets the first conclusion useing only axioms 1,2 and 3.
> fine i agree completely with this.
Good, that was the part of Searle that I think is the most important.
Programming is all about (what he calls) syntax, we humans have syntax
and meaning. Thus, meaning (e.g. seeing a purpose) is what computers
lack.
> now he adds the 4th axiom that brains cause minds.
> i.e. that the physical stuff that the brain is made up of, to use his
> word "causes" our conciousness.
> if he did not put this in and dissagreed with it then fine, else i do
> not know
> what he is argueing about.
Well, here I diverge also with Searle. I can't follow him here either.
In some article in a book he says that brains have some special causal
powers that are necessary for consciousness. What that special something
is he doesn't say.
You further wrote:
> > Jee...maybe I have an opinion that's in minority.
> eer....no - the majority of the world beleives that formilised
> conciousness is
> pegion poop just as you do. they wave their hands in the air and do
> not preduce
> gold from lead (which is posiible) but minds from nothing.
>
> > only people having their carreers in AI don't like to hear that
> ??..eer...ok
>
> > how do you know that a person in your dream isn't self-aware?
> good question
>
> > when I deal with the alien long enough, I will intuit or feel
> eventually
> > with a considerable certainty whether the alien is a robot or is a
> > sentient being.
> > Of course, this argument is by far not conclusive, I know.
> eer...it is not even an argument
>
> > Suggestions for further reading:
> yup - let someone else do the argueing
>
Okay, okay, above you're sort of nitpicking. Fine. No, above is not an
'argument', excuse me for the faulty usage of this term! It's not based
on any reasoning. But you surely understand that what I was trying to
say that a sense of intuition or 'empathy' can be a source of knowing,
too, besides purely rational reasoning?
Pat.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:38:07 GMT