From: Harvey Newstrom (newstrom@newstaffinc.com)
Date: Tue Jun 22 1999 - 21:31:05 MDT
On Tuesday, June 22, 1999 9:14 pm, O'Regan, Emlyn
<Emlyn.ORegan@actew.com.au> wrote:
You have redefined the experiment to include the assumptions that the brain
is alive, the neurons are alive, they trigger by their own volition, and
that their messages are being communicated between them. Given these
assumptions, the brain would be alive.
My objection was to the idea of externally providing stimulus to neurons
that were no longer capable of triggering by themselves. The original
example also had humans doing the brain modelling for the neurons, because
they could not communicate or cooperate by themselves. In this example, the
humans were dictating what the "brain" would do. Thus, they are providing
the consciousness, not the brain.
In your redefined example, the brain functions without dictation from the
humans. It can come up with independent thoughts. It therefore is alive.
The previous example got extremely ludicrous when it turned out that the
dead neurons could be replaced with pieces of yarn, and the claim was that
the yarn-brain was still conscious.
I agree that both scenarios produce identical consciousness. I claim that
one is a program of consciousness being run by the brain, while the other is
a program of consciousness being run by a committee of humans.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:15 MST