🚀 go-pugleaf

"Michael Olea" <oleaj@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BBD6C65A.12D2%oleaj@sbcglobal.net...
| 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.

I stand Corrected. I skimmed-over the
"non-biological" in the last sentence.

I Apologize to you, Michael.

BTW, non-biological machine 'consciousness'
is 'easy'. For those who have it, a 'blueprint'
for such has been in AoK all along. [I'll gladly
discuss, in-person.]

[This is not to say that achieving the 'equivalent'
of Human Consciousness is "easy".]

Cheers,

ken [k. p. collins]