[Wittrs] Searle in his own words!

  • From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:16:38 -0400

SWM wrote:

Now Joe's original point was that the text he cited demonstrated that Searle 
wasn't denying that computers could be conscious but only that programs could. 
But when we look at that text in context and more closely we see that he IS 
talking about computers running programs, i.e., his argument aims to deny that 
computers could be conscious DOING WHAT COMPUTERS DO. This isn't about some 
mysterious occurrence of consciousness that's analogous to how computers qua 
machines generate heat and noise in operation -- a thing no one in AI is 
claiming.

So this passage doesn't support a claim that my point that his denial of 
computationally caused consiousness contradicts his affirmation of brain caused 
consciousness.

precisely,

you claim that his denial of computationally caused consiousness contradicts his affirmation of brain caused consciousness; and, the quoted passage does not support such a claim.

Joe


--

Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
      http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@


==========================================

Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: