Being Duped by Richard Wiseman Video Explains DogsThatKnow

[David Bailey]

This is exactly where my thread about simulating a brain on a computer (as a gedanken experiment) comes in.

If Searle were right, then why can't you just take his concept of a machine that produces consciousness and reproduce it on a computer as a simulation?

David

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

It was not a retraction. His point is that people misunderstand his argument.

He thinks the brain is a machine and that it produces consciousness. Therefore it is perfectly possible for a machine to think. Moreover brains can sometimes compute eg it can add up 2 + 2 to equal 4. So with a sufficiently broad definition of computer brains are computers, therefore computers can think.

But computers as we think of them i.e digital computers, no matter how complex, could never be conscious.

I didn't think you could have possibly been correct. It's strange though. I often find if I dig into what skeptics claim I find what they say to be simply incorrect, or at least deeply misleading.

Remember what the target originally was and not what Searle later shifted the target to. The original target was "Strong AI" but now Searle admits that the argument doesn't target the thesis that "the appropriately programmed computer literally has cognitive states." What Searle does is change the target and redefines "Strong AI" as the view that "the mind is a computer program." So his new target is Computationalism. There is a considerable logical and epistemological gap in this change of target from AI to computationalism. Also, there are more problems with his argument(s) directed at his target(s). Click here to find out: The Chinese Room Argument

--------------------

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

The argument was never meant to explain consciousness. It was meant to credit the hunch that consciousness is as you say "something completely different from everything else we know in the physical universe." It fails to credit the hunch. Since there are no good arguments to counter materialist notions that consciousness is a brain phenomena they continue to work on the problem.

-------------

I don't understand your arguing here. It seems you're talking about two different arguments in the same passage. First you're talking about the counter-argument to the zombie, right? ("The argument was never meant to explain consciousness.") Then suddenly you're talking about the zombie argument. ("It fails to credit the hunch.")

Or am I wrong?

What exactly are you getting at?

[DysonSphere]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

Since there are no good arguments to counter materialist notions that consciousness is a brain phenomena they continue to work on the problem.

-------------

Since when? Jackson's argument is a good one.

In my opinion the prospect looks rather bleak for materialists. I'm going to take on faith that they might someday be able to find away to explain consciousness solely in terms of brain function.