[ExI] [Exl] Digital Consciousness
stathisp at gmail.com
Fri May 3 06:30:52 UTC 2013
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Gordon <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why do you think a bunch of dumb atoms being a mind is more plausible
>> than the pigeons?
> I think so because the pigeons are acting only according to syntactical
> rules, rules which I believe are not intrinsic to real minds.
> If the brain were really like a digital computer then sure, we could create
> brains on digital computers. We could even make them out of pecking pigeons.
> Anything comparable to on/off switches would work.
And the atoms which give rise to real minds do not follow syntactic
rules? All of physics is about syntactic rules. So is chemistry,
biology and neuroscience. Are they all wrong? Do the semantic rules
appear magically at some point? If so, why can't they appear magically
from the interaction of semiconductor circuits or pigeons?
More information about the extropy-chat