🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:01:14 GMT, Michael Olea <oleaj@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>in article 0Fdsb.49581$Ec1.3303474@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, KP_PC
>at k.p.collins@worldnet.att.net wrote on 11/11/03 2:46 PM:
>
>> "Michael Olea" <oleaj@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:BBD69100.12C8%oleaj@sbcglobal.net...
>> | in article lnd2rv0k34b2sp117g8sbjl5mtu5e6acci@4ax.com, r norman at
>> | rsn_@_comcast.net wrote on 11/11/03 11:27 AM:
>> |
>> | > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:14:13 GMT, "Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote:
>> | >
>> | >> [...]
>> | > That is, the brain IS a kind of machine
>> | > already, so yes, consciousness can
>> | > be produced by a machine.  And that
>> | > means that is could also be produced
>> | > by a non-biological machine.
>> | >
>> | The last sentence does not necessarily
>> | follow - it is a logical possibility that
>> | whatever it is that makes a machine
>> | "non-biological" also makes it
>> | incapable of consciousness.  I am not
>> | advocating that position, just
>> | pointing out a flaw in the reasoning.
>> 
>> One has to take the last two sentences of
>> R. Norman's post as a unit. The 2nd-to-last
>> sentence implies "biological machine".
>> 
>> ken
>> 
>> 
>
>Right. And the last sentence concludes that because there are "biological
>machines" capable of consciousness there must be "non-biological machines"
>also capable of consciousness.  This does not follow.  One way to see that
>is to draw a Venn diagram.

It does not follow directly.

However, if it is true that consciousness is nothing more than the
working out of laws of physics and chemistry given a particular albeit
highly complex arrangement of molecules, organelles, and cells, then
once we understand the mechanisms it should be conceptually possible
to produce an artificial device that uses the same laws of physics and
chemistry with a rather different arrangement of non-biological
components to acheive the same effect.