X-Message-Number: 9291
Subject: yawn....
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:13:17 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <>

> From: Ettinger <>
> Subject: erratum; story telling

> Once more, the info folk claim that an emulation of you (and your
> activities and environment) in a computer would BE you (and your
> world). Never mind that the computer may only be a Turing tape, with
> nothing happening physically except a tape jerking along with marks
> made and unmade on squares of the paper. Because an isomorphism or
> correspondence can be shown between the marks and their changes on
> the one hand, and you and your changes of state on the other, the
> "information paradigm" requires that the tape "person" be considered
> just as real--just as conscious and feeling--as the flesh and bloo d
> person.

You know, I'm shocked at these foolish biology people, who believe
that a bunch of squishy microscopic bags of chemicals in putting out
pulse trains could possibly be as conscious real as a vibrant, warm,
computer. It is obvious that the "bio-paradigm" people must be
insane. No rational person could possibly belive that these "neurons"
they talk about would be capable of consciousness. Why, if I kick a
robot, it feels pain and gets upset, but could a bag of chemicals
possibly possess consciousness? Why, I can't carry out a conversation
with any of these "neurons" these "bio-consciousness paradigm" people
believe in -- how could a bunch of them together possibly be conscious?

> For many  readers, this info faith is so ridiculous as not to require any
> counterargument,

This belief in the possibility of "biological consciousness" is so
ridiculous as to require no counterargument

> and these readers will wonder why sensible people even bother
> to talk about it.

and many would wonder why anyone would waste time on the notion of
squishy chemical systems being conscious.

> Now my new (?) analogy or slightly different attack tack. "A picture is worth
> a thousand words." But are a thousand words--or a million--as good as a
> picture? Would a lot of appropriate words, taken together, CONSTITUTE a
> picture?

You know, Mr. Ettinger, someday perhaps you'll come up with something
new, but at the moment, most of what you come up with is rehashed
Searle, and not even as good as Searle manages to be.

Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9291