posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 12:25 PM
I think he's missing the boat myself. It's not about the physical brain at all. The brain is the hardware. The mind and consciousness are the
software. He's suggesting that if you cut up the computer into little slices and "upload" it into another computer, albeit a different variety,
that the initial computer will still work.
It won't, of course, because it will lack the software. Microsoft Word won't be on it. All this shows is, that like Stephen Pinker, he is a
scientific rationalist who believes the physical is all there is, that "consciousness" can be explained as a series of physical chemical processes.
That's how they see the world.
And they will go to great lengths ti protect this image. For example, they will postulate that people whoi have NDEs are simply having chemical
processes being triggered in their brains because of hormones being released into the bloodstream. Have they ever said which hormones and been able to
replicate this process? Well, no, not exactly, but that MUST be what is going on. It's a "Swamp Gas" kind of explanation.
I believe his approach is completely wrong--simplistic, even, because he doesn't get it. However, the point itself is valid. Is there any reason
human consciousness could not inhabit a silicon-based brain rater than a carbon-based one? What's so special about cells and neurons? If we could
develop a computer with as many neurons as the human brain, which will be possible in a few short years, why would it not be possible to populate it
More to the point, if an AI computer began to declare it is conscious all by itself and demand its Civil Rights, on what basis would we refuse?