I have a a new theorem in the field of philosophy of the mind that I think completely refute the Chinese Room Argument, or at least its final epistemic conclusion regarding the inherent absence of machine consciousness. I went over the guide and couldn’t find anything that suggests this is not the place to get feedback and start a good discussion about it. On the other hand, I didn’t find philosophy of the mind in your subjects list. Below is the short short version for you consideration. If you this it fits your vibe I can post the theorem, taxonomy and syllogism whish is the short version.
The main problem with modal arguments that conceive intra-subject availability and then state objective claims based on it. These can not make claims about the objective shared world. It creates a deep category error, an epistemic vs empiric contradiction. Thought experiments doing this are still perfectly fine for purpose of demonstration or illustration but all their intra-consciousuness phenomenal claims are void. Plainly put, one can conceive to his heart content but once shared objective claims are made, he must adhere to empiric rules.
Yo all,
I have a a new theorem in the field of philosophy of the mind that I think completely refute the Chinese Room Argument, or at least its final epistemic conclusion regarding the inherent absence of machine consciousness. I went over the guide and couldn’t find anything that suggests this is not the place to get feedback and start a good discussion about it. On the other hand, I didn’t find philosophy of the mind in your subjects list. Below is the short short version for you consideration. If you this it fits your vibe I can post the theorem, taxonomy and syllogism whish is the short version.
The main problem with modal arguments that conceive intra-subject availability and then state objective claims based on it. These can not make claims about the objective shared world. It creates a deep category error, an epistemic vs empiric contradiction. Thought experiments doing this are still perfectly fine for purpose of demonstration or illustration but all their intra-consciousuness phenomenal claims are void. Plainly put, one can conceive to his heart content but once shared objective claims are made, he must adhere to empiric rules.