From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!orourke Tue Jan 28 12:17:12 EST 1992
Article 3107 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3107 sci.philosophy.tech:1965
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <42200@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 24 Jan 92 05:24:22 GMT
References: <11774@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <42143@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1992Jan23.130625.7955@husc3.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 14

In article <1992Jan23.130625.7955@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>... Understanding
>presupposes consciousness, which presupposes internal self-awareness.
>It's all in Locke's "Essay"; look it up.

It may well be that understanding is not possible without
consciousness, but Locke's "Essay," although undeniably brilliant,
is not convincing to me on this, or almost any, issue.  It is a
long and complex argument that is difficult to grasp in its
entirety, and seems wrong in many of its details.  I cannot imagine
that Locke would have been so smugly confident of the infallibility
of his introspection on consciousness were he writing his essay
300 years later: i.e., today.


