Doxa

JimL

While it is reasonable to regard consciousness as an emergent property of a physical system there is no profound sense in which it can be said that different people's brains work according to the same kinds of processes and an appropriately programmed computer and a human brain would work according to different processes. Any difference between these situations is just a matter of degree and any argument that we should presume other people conscious because their brains work in basically the same sort of way could also be used to justify presuming an appropriately programmed computer conscious.[7]

what exactly is wrong in that statement?

Metacrock wrote:JimL

While it is reasonable to regard consciousness as an emergent property of a physical system there is no profound sense in which it can be said that different people's brains work according to the same kinds of processes and an appropriately programmed computer and a human brain would work according to different processes. Any difference between these situations is just a matter of degree and any argument that we should presume other people conscious because their brains work in basically the same sort of way could also be used to justify presuming an appropriately programmed computer conscious.[7]

what exactly is wrong in that statement?

It sounds like you're taking one phrase:

there is no profound sense in which it can be said that different people's brains work according to the same kinds of processes

in isolation from what follows. He's not denying that people's brains work according to the same processes. He's saying that no one can claim that and at the same time claim that a human brain and a computer work according to profoundly different processes. He's wrong about that, I think, but I don't think he's saying what you think he's saying. He's saying we can use the same reasoning to assume that our human brains work alike as we can use to assume that the differences between hman and artificial brains are just a matter of degree. It's there in the last sentence of the passage I quoted.

Metacrock wrote:

The Pixie wrote:

Mind is the best organizing principle we know.

And all the minds we know of reside in physical human brains.

Thus the universe must have been designed by a human.

It is great what you can prove if you start from a generalisation, and assume it is an absolute truth.

your true assumption is that since God is not human he can' hold no commence with us, that does not follow especially if he create us to have convener with,

btw humans are not the only form of mind, mind may run from ground up, so amoeba may havemimds,mdogs have them pace aliens may have then,

Amoebas, dogs and aliens may have minds, but neverheless all the minds we know of reside in physical human brains. The "we know of" qualify is important.

The bigger point here is that you are not follow the basic logic.

1. All the minds we know of reside in physical human brains
2. Therefore it is reasonable to assume all minds reside in physical human brains
3. The universe must be organised by a mind (from your post)
4. Therefore the universe was organised by a mind in a human brain

I suppose it could be modified to allow for your dog:

1. All the minds we know of reside in physical biological brains
2. Therefore it is reasonable to assume all minds reside in physical biological brains
3. The universe must be organised by a mind (from your post)
4. Therefore the universe was organised by a mind in one or more biological brains

To Joe and Pix: Thanks for continuing to post on here and doing your best to keep this board alive!

Better to post here, better formatting capacities.....