RE: Mind Over Matter?
April 10, 2015 at 7:22 pm
(This post was last modified: April 10, 2015 at 7:27 pm by Whateverist.)
(April 5, 2015 at 3:02 am)bennyboy Wrote: I don't disbelieve in the capactiy of a neural network to sustain consciousness. I disbelieve that there is any function of human behavior that couldn't be replicated as well by a philosophical zombie as by an actually-sentient human being. If the universe were purely a mechanical one, then there would be nothing but things doing stuff-- no consciousness required. Therefore, I have to include that the possibility of sentience is intrinsically included in the makeup of the universe: i.e. that it's no less a part of reality than gravity.
I don't think I agree. I don't think it makes any sense to talk about consciousness apart from embodied consciousness. I don't think it is as inevitable as gravity. Plenty of worlds could be devoid of life and therefore also of brains complex enough to exhibit consciousness. An entire universe devoid of life is not unimaginable - even though the imagining itself implies the involvement of a brain which could only happen in a universe where life happens.
(April 9, 2015 at 11:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote:Sorry, but I'm not sure who the original quote comes from but the part I bolded struck me as odd. Isn't it "minds" (or at least brains) which process? The processing doesn't give rise to minds, it's the other way around.Quote: What's the non-arbitrary cut-line between simple "data exchange" and mind-producing "processing"?again, and from above...that there be processing, in a comp mind framework(I'm assuming you're asking from that POV). Even if we have processing.....we'll still be looking for more than a pocket calculator......it would seem.
Perhaps you only meant that "processing" is a marker for the presence of minds?
