(September 7, 2014 at 7:21 pm)bennyboy Wrote:You didn't adress my complaint. I'm not stating that a mind cannot be on another medium. I'm stating that the medium creates the mind. As long as the required architecture and processes can exist on the medium in a stable form, a mind can be created on that medium.(September 7, 2014 at 1:05 pm)Surgenator Wrote: My complaint is the term transcendental. It implies an existence on it's own volition, i.e. no medium required. I have no problem a mind arising on another medium.It's not an implication. That's exactly what I'm saying. IF mind can be created by different mechanisms functioning differently, then it is transcendent-- "mind-ness," the capacity for mind, should not be said to be in the brain, but in the brain's logical parents: maybe the universe, maybe organic chemistry, maybe any mechanism capable of certain kinds of data function. Whatever physical arrangement is minimally responsible for consciousness is the actual "creator," not specifically the brain.
Quote:The .mp3 is not best seen an expression of the media being decoded and converted to sound,Actually, that is exactly what it is seen as. The encoded song is what humans give meaning to. The mp3 is just a fancy algorithm that allows for compact storage of the song.
Quote:No, there aren't. There are lots of little assumptions that allow us to accept it to be so.No, there is one assumption, and lots of bits of evidence supporting that assumption.
