Toward a Science of Consciousness 1998
Brian J Flanagan
bflanagn at sleepy.giant.net
Fri Apr 24 06:42:27 EST 1998
On 23 Apr 1998 modlin at concentric.net wrote:
> In <6hodma$o2j at ux.cs.niu.edu>, rickert at cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
> >To the extent that that is true, computation is irrelevant to
BJ: And you have determined this ... how?
> The original statement was that our modern computers could not be
> conscious because they are just big number-crunchers, followed by
> suggestions that a different (non-number crunching) computer
> architecture might still be able to be conscious. That's false. If any
> computer archictecture can do the job, all of them can, in principle.
BJ: What principle are you invoking?
> And if a number-crunching computer can't do the job, then NO computer,
> regardless of architecture can do the job. Period.
BJ: Wonderful finality, that--but perhaps it is only a question of what
one means by 'computer'.
More information about the Neur-sci