Re: Qualia and the Galactic Loony Bin
Harvey Newstrom (newstrom@newstaffinc.com)
Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:02:53 -0400
I find these kinds of arguments to be semantic tricks. These are similar to
proofs that claim 1==0 or some such nonsense. The examples basically
subdivide the operations so far that you are looking at individual atoms in
a structure or letters in a message and not considering the whole.
Basically, the flaw in the sub-divided brain example are these:
- It cannot sense anything. Humans have to decide on what sensory input
will be defined.
Disconnected neurons cannot really communicate. Humans agree on what
communications would have gone between neurons, and they provide the
messages.
It is not running in real time. Humans set a time, devise all input for
millions of neurons, and then everybody scatters and prepares to stimulate
their neuron-in-a-box at the same time.
Such a brain is not perceiving anything. Its neurons are not communicating.
It is not having sequential thoughts that flow from one to another. Non
sequiturs could be programmed just as easily. If the humans make an error
in calculation and program someone else's brain pattern, it would go into
this scheme just as well as the original brain's.
Basically, the humans are slowly modeling a brain's activity on paper.
Rather than the brain functioning on its own, and the humans seeing the
activity, it is the reverse. The humans are determining the activity, and
then pretending that the brain is functioning thusly.
It is a trick to explain this to such a level of minutia that people become
confused as to whether the brain really is still functional. This is an
argumentative trick that prevents objections from properly being addressed.
The brain is obviously dismembered and not functioning. It is an elaborate
puppet that is made to do what the very large committee of puppeteers
scripts it to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
--
Harvey Newstrom <mailto://newstrom@newstaffinc.com> <http://newstaffinc.com>
Author, Consultant, Engineer, Legal Hacker, Researcher, Scientist.