Potemkin wrote:@Sivad
Why not be intellectually honest and just assert that humans have a soul and computers don't? You are, after all, making an unprovable metaphysical claim rather than a scientific claim. You should own that.
I haven't made any metaphysical claim at all. How exactly does rejection of computationalism entail a commitment to substance dualism? Also, how is computationalism incompatible with substance dualism?
Potemkin wrote:He's not a moron, just intellectually dishonest. He's basically trying to assert that humans have a soul and computers don't. Which is fine, but he's dressing it up in pseudo-scientific jargon to make it sound more plausible.
I'm not sure if you're referring to me or Tse but neither of us are trying to assert anything like that. BTW, Tse is a fairly prominent and well respected scientist -
Peter Ulric Tse
Associate Professor
Harvard University, 1992-1998, PhD Cognitive Psychology, with Patrick Cavanagh and Ken Nakayama
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, 1999-2001, post-doc, fMRI, with Nikos Logothetis
We use fMRI, DTI, and psychophysics in my lab to investigate the cognitive and neural bases of visual perception, attention and consciousness. Our research focuses on the visual perception of 3D form and motion, and how these two types of information interact with each other and with attention. Because the 2D visual image is inherently ambiguous, the visual system must construct 3D percepts on the basis of assumptions about the image-to-world mapping. One of our team's goals is to understand the assumptions that underlie the construction of visual percepts, and to understand the neuronal circuits that could realize such constructive processes. In addition to vision, attention and consciousness my lab has become increasingly interested in studying the neural bases of human creativity, free will and symbolic processing as well.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~petertse/Potemkin wrote:If you want to read the non-retarded arguments in favour of a special status for the human brain, you should read the work of Roger Penrose instead. Unlike this guy, he actually knows something about science. Lol.
What a joke.