RE: On naturalism and consciousness
September 4, 2014 at 6:30 pm
(This post was last modified: September 4, 2014 at 6:33 pm by bennyboy.)
(September 4, 2014 at 2:15 pm)rasetsu Wrote:I took another look at this, and it still seems to me that Churchland is playing a kind of shell game. Yes, the robot's processing can be called thought, and it's behaviors can be said to have meaning, but only in the context of a sentient observer. Otherwise, it's still all just stuff happening. To the credit of the robot, the same goes toward people as well: it is only because sentient observers (the self and others) see meaning in human behaviors that they are said to represent intentionality.(September 4, 2014 at 1:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The only thing that is ridiculous is your assertion that a physical system, like a switch has meaning apart from a knowing subject. You say that when a light goes on and off that conveys meaning, but what meaning. The light could mean anything from "the bathroom is occupied" to "system overload". Your physical monist theory does not account for the difference between signs and significance.
I'm guessing you didn't read the excerpt from Churchland early in this thread.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-28092-po...#pid732064
Asked and answered.