LOL. Would you care to enlighten us as to how many TTL gates would be required to 'replace' a single neuron? First you might need to determine what a specific neuron actually does. And do you propose all neurons are alike as to input/output and function?
Most of us can tell the difference between life, and non-life. "Mind" is a another problem.
Lifeforms with less complexity don't exhibit "consciousness" as we recognize it; whether that means they are really just complex machines is not quite so obvious.
I think I have made it pretty clear that I "know" the opposite. When we use a material object - whether fingers, marbles, or bits - to help us with a task - it is we who are doing the logic. A computer is no different than your fingers or an abacus. When a person builds an abacus, she builds certain expectations into it along mechanistic lines, but it remains a fact that it was the human who did all the logic.
Machines can be constructed by us, to help us do logic. Any extension of this, whether to beans or to transistors, is an anthropomorphism.
It is not a reach. No need to ask twice. This should help you out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
We are talking about Logic. You are looking for the "Materialism and Santa Claus, mutually exclusive?" thread. Don't get me wrong, that would be an interesting thread!
Sorry, change couldn't to could.
No need to apologize. I expect to get as good as I give. Though I'm trying to make less snide comments.
No, I'm a materialist.
Been there done that. I'm also a programmer, well, I was. Since the Internet bubble burst I've had to slowly switch careers and I'm now mostly an insurance auditor. In any event, yeah, that's what I thought. But then I came to realize that decision making isn't all that it's cracked up to be. We make decisions based on internal (encoded instructions in the brain) and external variables.
So are humans. Oh, our decision making is far more complex than even the most complex algorithms designed by man but it is still an algorithm.
There is no feed back loop for marbles rolling down a hill. This is the same mistake I made. I reduced what was happening in a computer to its most basic and deduced that there was no "thinking" to be found there. But thinking isn't found at that level. Consciousness is an emergent property. Like flight. You won't find flight in the curve of an airplane wing. There is an entire and complex set of variables that must be achieved before flight happens. Same with sentience. It requires the most complex system in the known universe with many interdependent systems and feedback loops.
It depends on how you define "do logic"?
You did not answer the questions. However, I accept your argument, and with it have concluded that you cannot do logic. In my above example, I give both you and the CPU a logical problem and you both return with the answers. I was the only one using logic; you and the CPU were merely my tools.
There's no difference.
The mechanism has no needs, you are projecting your own need upon a material object. It is you who need the mechanism to do something. It is you who need it to accept inputs and you who need it to produce outputs.
An argument that relies on the ambiguity of a term is called "equivocation". If you can point out where I do that I would appreciate it, and I suspect a number of others in this forum would appreciate it too. However, you claim to "refuse to try to analyze the argument", instead choosing to attack my motivations. That is called an "ad hominem" fallacy.
Then change the channel.
Welcome aboard, Blutarsky. I have only been posting on the forum for less than a week - I can warn you that it is addictive. I found it frustrating not being able to post links (or smileys, i will warn you), because you lose the entire text of your post if you attempt to do so... so always save your text to a clipboard before you hit submit.
My snideness index seems to be on the rise, but I am trying to keep it under control. It does no good really... I think some on this post have misinterpreted my sense of humour for snideness too. I gotta remember to put the winkie face on there. (No, I dont know if snideness is a word. Snidenosity?)
I realize that... it seemed to me that based on you Wonka quote, and your views on the brain, that you thought the brain was an homunculus.
Yes, a lot of my co-workers and trainees had to leave the industry back then. I have been lucky enough to be able to maintain a career at it.
Humans are machines we design? I assume you meant simply that humans are machines.
You are mistaken about feedback loops. If the person designing the marble track and its gates designs it with a feedback loop, then yes there is a feedback loop.
I have consistently used activities such as addition and subtraction, and the argument "modus ponens", as examples of logic. I find I am increasingly being subjected to escape tactics such as name calling, accusations of "semantics", calls to "define my terms", etc. I didnt know so many people were unfamiliar with what we mean by logic. Apparently zaayrdragon was not satisfied with Wiki, so he went to Princeton. I will deal with his post momentarily.
Logic is a broad field, and there is lots of discussion around it. If the Wiki article was too long, then going to Princeton was a good idea.
IMHO my explanations have been very clear, with clear examples.
Why do I get the sense I am being addressed by the Black Knight? I suggest you look up "coward"... I dont think it applies.
It is telling that you take what is the fifth definition for logic from the Princeton dictionary.
logic (the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference) logic (reasoned and reasonable judgment) "it made a certain kind of logic" logic (the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation) "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war" logic, logical system, system of logic (a system of reasoning)