[ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.

[John Clark]

On Dec 11, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

>> You don't know how biological brains work and yet
>> you think human beings are conscious, or at least you do
>> when they are not asleep or dead. You make this distinction
>> by observing their behavior. 
> 
> No, I simply notice that my brain has this feature called consciousness.

I'm not talking about your brain, how did you notice that MY brain has this feature called consciousness? Children know nothing about brains but they still think other people are conscious except when they are asleep or dead or otherwise ACT like they aren't. We do not think other people are conscious because of our knowledge of biology, the very idea that brains are important is a modern consept, but the idea that other people are often conscious is not. The Egyptians carefully preserved every part of the body EXCEPT the brain. Aristotle thought the brain was a minor organ that just cooled the blood and the heart was the heart of our being. But in spite of all this, solipsism has never been very popular in any age.

> So I don't know with whom you think you have a disagreement. Certainly not Searle or me.

Searle in his Chinese room thinks he has demonstrated that intelligence without consciousness is possible, but I am conscious and you probably are too. How did I come to be? It can't be evolution because it only sees intelligence, it only sees actions and Searle thinks intelligent actions doesn't need consciousness. So either Darwin was wrong or Searle was a fool. I don't think Darwin was wrong. 

> He makes no mystical claims about consciousness except in your misinformed imagination.

Its like the air, Searle's mysticism is so ubiquitous that he doesn't even notice it. He assumes his Chinese room is not conscious and expects us to make the same assumption.  

> Nobody here has claimed that a clone of a human brain does not have the same properties as the original. 
 
Bullshit. Almost everyone around here thinks an exact copy of you would have vastly different properties, one would be you and one would not. I cannot think of any property more important.

 John K Clark





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/938c6bd3/attachment.html>