Author: Robin Smith
Date: 19:14:03 03/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2001 at 15:59:13, Jay Scott wrote: >Searle is still stuck on that old consciousness gig. John Searle does not buy >Minsky's claim that "minds are what brains do". I think the interesting thing >about his Chinese Room argument is how confused people get when trying to answer >it. He has found an excellent way to get people's minds snarled up. Jay, I agree with you and Minsk that "minds are what brains do". Or at least with part of that statement. But this does not solve the mystery of consciousness and that fact that it is "an old gig", does not make it a non-issue. Take the case of the brain. Vast sections of it are active when we are awake and relatively inactive when we are in non-dream sleep. These portions of the brain clearly have something to do with our conscious, subjective experiences and it could well be argued that "minds are what these portions of the brain do". But equally vast portions of the brain are equally active all the time; sending, receiving and processing signals of which we are oblivious even when awake. So the problem of consciousness is not quite as easy as just saying "minds are what brains do". The brain does a lot of things that are totally separate from conscious experience. And then there is the problem of WHY are minds what brains do? Wouldn't all the neurons still fire and all the responses still happen without any subjective experiences? I mean the only evidence I really have for consciousness, or the mind, is my own subjective experience of it. NO external observations or scientific experiments that have been done to date would lead anyone to conclude that such a thing as a mind, or consciousness, exists. It is only via self reflection that it's very existence is even known! So yes, minds are what brains do. But that is a far cry from an explanation of the phenomenon. And without an explanation, we cannot know if a computer can be conscious. Intelligence is another matter. If something behaves intelligently, then it is intelligent by definition. Robin Smith
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.