From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!gatech!ncar!noao!arizona!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!bill Tue Jun  9 10:07:19 EDT 1992
Article 6109 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!gatech!ncar!noao!arizona!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!bill
>From: bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: lights on, nobody home
Message-ID: <BILL.92Jun5115711@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 92 18:57:10 GMT
References: <5245@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil> <BpDqqL.MMq@psych.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu
Organization: ARL Division of Neural Systems, Memory and Aging, University of
	Arizona
Lines: 22
In-Reply-To: michael@psych.toronto.edu's message of 5 Jun 92 15: 51:56 GMT

In article <BpDqqL.MMq@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:

   In article <5245@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil> nba1836@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (Ken Burch) writes:
   >
   >So in the pursuit of a real robot, or an entity that can pass the TTT 
   >(or TT, for that matter), we are looking to see if "somebody is home".
   >If a thing is conscious, there must be somebody "inside" who is being
   >conscious, experiencing the sensation of consciousness.

   By definition.  "Subject-less consciousness" is like "dehydrated water",
   "fat-free oil", or "McDonald's food", in other words, an oxymoron.   
   In order for there to be consciousness, there must be a thing experiencing.
   Experiences don't simply float around in the ether. 


"If a thing is conscious, there must be somebody inside who is being
conscious?????"  

This is precisely the fallacy of the homunculus; but rarely does it
appear so blatantly.

	-- Bill


