Scanning Searle's Brain

A simple THOUGHT experiment I came up with to renounce the hard problem, defend strong AI and support functionalism.

I am well aware such technology is not available today but use such examples to demonstrate that all we need to explain consciousness is a functional explanation.

• Category

  Education

[HymerSchmidt]

I'm really glad I found you. Before finding you I decided to take up a double major in computer science and neuroscience; any career aside from AI isn't facing so many new challenges. Me having just returned to school from a long sabbatical, and with a previously declared major of physics, I was wondering if you could recommend any reading for someone just getting into this stuff. Also, my GPA and test scores can take me(almost) anywhere, what schools have good programs? Thanks for existing.

[Kyle Harrington]

Thanks, erm I'm not too sure on where abouts in the world is the best at it. But for technology AI side MIT would certainly be a consideration. There is ALOT collections of books and papers to be found on torrent sites such as torrent-finder. You can find huge collections on AI, Robotics, Consciousness and Psychology (with some neurology). - Hope that helps - Kyle

[Bastian Sherwood]

To simulate the brain realistically, you need to simulate at least a limited universe around the brain (e.g. the optical nerve and the eye and the photons coming in) You might, arguably, have to simulate the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Maybe I'm off track, but it seems like consciousness functionally has a very fuzzy boundary that leads into "not I" space. So to say consciousness is purely function implies a universal consciousness? And if not, where does this consciousness end?

[1noen1]

FAIL - You can't assume what it is you are trying to prove. "I upload all this information on a database. So now I constructed this working model of Searle's brain." No, you haven't. All you have is exactly what Searle has in his Chinese Room. A database and the rules for manipulating it.

Syntax is insufficient for semantics. No amount of shuffling of the syntactic content in a Turing machine will yield semantics. Consciousness has semantic content. Therefore Strong AI is refuted.

[Paul Solin]

searles chinese room is definitely possible; "brain scanner" is too obtuse imo

[23discordians]

Why would consciousness be favoured genetically? Or why would the "I" be favoured genetically when all that matters to evolution is adaptive behaviour? Especially if you take the more gene-centric view of evolution which I think you do. I could be wrong but I am sure you have talked about it in a different vid.

[lorax2013]

Sorry, my previous comment was supposed to attach as a reply to wonderist's comment one page back.

[lorax2013]

Our technology for example is "evolving" due to our separate human consciousness. I think this argument against non-body consciousness still rests on an assumption of non mind-body consciousness.

As for the zombie argument, I don't really get it. Is the zombie able to feel emotion? If so, then what makes it a zombie?

[sssswwwsssss]

nb, I'm not bitching about you here. I'm refering to Churchland, Dennett et al.. I find W. Lycan's version distinctly plausible, however.