[ExI] Understanding is useless

Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com
Sat Jan 30 01:01:20 UTC 2010

On 1/29/2010 6:36 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:
>  Jeff Davis<jrd1415 at gmail.com>  wrote:

>> >  Gordon would not be dissuaded from his position without empirical
>> >  evidence to counter his view, and the required evidence -- a
>> >  materialist, non-magical neurological explanation for consciousness,
>> >  intelligence, intentionality, mind, etc --does not yet exist.

> You still don't understand me, Jeff. I argue here for exactly such an explanation.

I understand that, Gordon, but I don't understand what kind of 
explanation would satisfy you?

What class of operator do you suppose might fit into the "here a miracle 
occurs" slot?

Or are you (and maybe Searle) saying, "Dunno. It's very puzzling, just 
as solar output was prior to the discovery of nuclear burning." But if 
so, even that example was not a change in kind, not really--you seem to 
be looking for an *ontological* novelty. Which is probably why most 
other posters think you're grasping at souls.

Damien Broderick

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list