The Human Question

In a debate with Alister McGrath, Dennet proposes that, far from being beneficial to humans, religion is a virus to which we adapt. It occurs to me that Dennet, like Dawkins recognizes that religion is part of the human condition but doesn't want to grant that it is beneficial. But if one can argue that religion is a virus, can't someone else argue that democracy is one as well? At which point, we need to drop meme talk and rely on an insightful discussion of the evidence for/against belief in God.

Dennet argues that Searle's Chinese Room Argument is not cogent if you consider the possibility that the circuitry/machinery/personnel in the Chinese room could be many times (billions?) more complicated that Searle's example considers. Let us grant the complexity at whatever level that Dennet requires. Then let us add the following stipulation: that none of the components (be they non-electrical devices, super-computers, or persons) inside the Chinese room operates simultaneously with any of the other ones (this would take the equivalent of a sustain pedal on a guitar). It may take decades for it to perform ONE sentential act, but it gives the same answer as it would if they all operated in parallel, etc. Would this combination of asynchronously operating components be a thinking machine?