Hmm, assuming we were computer simulations. When we speak, we must then be speaking of computer simulations. For example, "simplicus is sitting under a tree" refers not to simplicus who isn't actually sitting under a tree, it refers to a computer simulation. More specifically anything we say refers to a simulation of an experience. But if we were to say "I am a computer simluation" it would have to refer to the experience of being a computer simulation, but it can't, because if we were a simulation we could never experience being a computer simulation.

OK, enough of that. I don't know if the Chinese room argument implies dualism in the traditional sense but I think it at least rejects the notion that brain is a fancy computer. I don't believe in substance dualism, that is to say, I can't believe that there there is matter and "other" stuff which not only exist, but interact! I suppose one could simply believe in that other stuff, but why? As a rational human, why not just cut out the other stuff since there's no interraction. If you had to pigeonhole me I'd say I'm some kind of materialist. That is, until further notice of course.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

I get it now, thanks.

The problem I have with matter-and-nothing-else is that matter seems so very different from subjective experience. No-one can give us the remotest idea how atoms bumping together could ever produce subjective sensations. Until they can, we will always have this debate, apparently.

I'd like to live long enough to see someone come up with a conscious machine (though how we'd know it is conscious is tricky to say the least - part of the same problem). I wonder if it would like us? Maybe model it on a dog - that would work.

__________________
'79 280SE
'87 560SEL
'83 280CE
'01 Nissan Micra
'98 VW Passat
'83 911 turbo

My BS alarm rang so hard that it bent the clapper.

It's easy to write a program that will subsitute a logical false in place of a logical true.

Therefore, a "real" simulation could, and probably would, necessarily include both self-deception and criticism of self-deception--just like we do in "real" life.

Thus a mechanistic response to a query could remain mechanistic but include a NOT operator or it could be probabilistic and return an answer given some probablility density function or some heuristic model, or .... etc. There's am interesting movie, "13th Floor" that investigates one outcome of these ideas.

A model world would necessarily be dualistic, though the sims inside may never know for certain.

Botnst

I think we reach the same conclusion Botst except for one quirk in your post.

Sure. Any computer which substitutes true for false and false for true is indistinguishable from its counterpart. So why bother?

JJ, I don't get how emergent properties seemingly appear out of nowhere. No explanation about emergence has ever satisfied me either, so I'm in the same boat there. It's like, magic? I suppose I'm sorta dualistic in that way, but I refuse to believe that's it some "other" force. It may exist, but I don't buy into that interaction thing.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

Hey, anyone play Sim City? One of the newspaper articles within SimCity 2000 had me on the floor: it read that the citizens were starting to think that they were just denizens of a giant simulation (something like that, anyway). ... sorry, this frivolity is the most i can contribute to the sim idea ...


*Quote from the 1st post*
When the atom bomb was first created, scientists were worried that it would produce so much heat it would cause the air to burn, as nitrogen atoms could start fuse. If this released enough energy to make nearby atoms fuse, a chain reaction would start that would sweep the globe burning every living thing in its path. The risks of this were taken seriously enough director of the scientists researching the bomb to launch a study. Although they were later proved correct, it shows how scientists are prepared to risk the unknown and potentially devastating consequences of their research for life on this planet.
*End quote*

Way back, I saw a show about the A-bomb on the History Channel. My impression from the show was that the scientists were aware of the idea that a chain reaction could occur and toast the entire planet, but their number-crunching had consistently shown that it was essentially an impossibility. Hence they were _not_ prepared to "risk the unknown..." as the author wrote. Then I visited the web site and everything made sense...

I tried to list everything I could think of. A trivial solution is still a solution.

That's my long way of conceding your point without sounding like I'm conceding your point.

Botnst