[ExI] The digital nature of brains (was: digital simulations)
lacertilian at gmail.com
Sat Jan 30 18:27:18 UTC 2010
Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> I don't disagree but it misses the point. In Searle's reply to his systems critics, he becomes the system and *neither he nor anything inside him* can understand the symbols. You reply "Yeah well neurons don't know anything either but the system does". Do you see how that misses the point? *We can no longer compare the man to a neuron in a larger system*. We cannot do so because the man becomes the entire system, and his neurons lack understanding just as he does.
> He no longer exists as part of a larger system that might understand the symbols, unless you want to step foot into the domain of religion and claim that some god understands the symbols that he cannot understand. Is that your claim?
What makes you assert that nothing inside him understands the symbols?
It's very obvious that Searle becomes the entire system, and equally
obvious that he is no longer part of a larger system which may or may
not have understanding.
However, this does not exclude the possibility that Searle is now a
larger system containing a smaller system which understands symbols.
Such as, for example, the Earth, or a busy office building. One could
even make the case for Congress.
The argument to refute is this:
One human being may contain more than one mind.
More information about the extropy-chat