Mr Michael Bibby
s4032484 at student.uq.edu.au
Wed Nov 12 02:58:06 EST 2003
>in article 0Fdsb.49581$Ec1.3303474 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, KP_PC
>at k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net wrote on 11/11/03 2:46 PM:
>> "Michael Olea" <oleaj at sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:BBD69100.12C8%oleaj at sbcglobal.net...
>> | in article lnd2rv0k34b2sp117g8sbjl5mtu5e6acci at 4ax.com, r norman at
>> | rsn_ at _comcast.net wrote on 11/11/03 11:27 AM:
>> | > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:14:13 GMT, "Dio" <dadaismo at tin.it> wrote:
>> | >
>> | >> [...]
>> | > That is, the brain IS a kind of machine
>> | > already, so yes, consciousness can
>> | > be produced by a machine. And that
>> | > means that is could also be produced
>> | > by a non-biological machine.
>> | >
>> | The last sentence does not necessarily
>> | follow - it is a logical possibility that
>> | whatever it is that makes a machine
>> | "non-biological" also makes it
>> | incapable of consciousness. I am not
>> | advocating that position, just
>> | pointing out a flaw in the reasoning.
>> One has to take the last two sentences of
>> R. Norman's post as a unit. The 2nd-to-last
>> sentence implies "biological machine".
>Right. And the last sentence concludes that because there are "biological
>machines" capable of consciousness there must be "non-biological machines"
>also capable of consciousness. This does not follow. One way to see that
>is to draw a Venn diagram.
draw a ven diagram? you cannot be serious! when will you learn that deductive
logic is useless: even if this conclusion was necessitated by the premises,
which it is not, what then? it doesnt 'prove' anything! See John Searle in
'Minds, Brains and Machines', if your interested in vacous analytic philosophy,
but frankly i think its a complete waste of time.
More information about the Neur-sci