11 ms·

I read the Chinese room argument, it seems really naive. It's like saying "my neurons aren't conscious therefore I am not conscious", which is clearly not the c

I read the Chinese room argument, it seems really naive. It's like saying "my neurons aren't conscious therefore I am not conscious", which is clearly not the case. We're made of matter, computers are made of matter, where is the difference?

ild 11y ago
> It's like saying "my neurons aren't conscious therefore I am not conscious", which is clearly not the case. You need to read Searle's works again; his point is actually the opposite - we are machines made out of biological neurons, which seem to have an externally unobservable property of being conscious; we do not know what it is caused by, but we can see today that it is possible to create a simulation of human behavior by means of logical gates. We have no idea if it will have mind or not. > We're made of matter, computers are made of matter, where is the difference? That's an odd argument. And actually does not contradict Searle at all.