From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc Fri Jan 31 10:27:07 EST 1992
Article 3279 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
>From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Strong AI and Panpsychism
Message-ID: <V9eBFB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: 29 Jan 92 14:25:18 GMT
References: <1992Jan28.165322.25735@colorado.edu>
Lines: 44

tesar@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bruce Tesar) writes:

> In article <1992Jan28.004208.27238@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.e
> >
> ... lots of stuff on Panpsychism and AI deleted ...
> >
> >However, I think that you point out one *very* good reason above to 
> >believe that consciousness is *not* merely descriptive, and that the
> >moral consequences if it is.  If there is no fact of the matter whether
> >something is conscious, then morality (or at least most versions of it)
> >goes out the window.  Why should I treat *you* as conscious, if that is
> >merely a "descriptive" term?  And therefore, why should I treat you as any
> >more worthy of ethical consideration than a rock, or a roomfull of air, or
> >a computer?
> >
>     You could start by explaining why I should treat *you* as more worthy
> of ethical consideration than a rock, given that you are conscious and
> the rock is not. What is so important about being conscious?

For some reason Kant thought that consciousness (nonepiphenomenal
sentience that played a role in choosing or deciding on a
behavior) _logically_ entailed treating that conscious entity as
an end rather than a means.  I've never understood the force of
that.  _Why_ should someone's consciousness, status as a
for-itself, capacity for choice, etc., _logically_ require me to
treat h/er as an end.  I think it would be a nice thing to do and
I am in favor ot it.  But is it in any way _logically_ necessary?
(I think the current legal notion of the contract follows
necessarily from the belief that consciousness _requires_ me to
treat you as an end.  If I hire you to do day's work at a wage
which would not support you in any but the most miserable
lifestyle, and you are more or less forced to take the job since
it is the only one available to you, I need some notion that we
have made a contract to exchange commodities -- your labor for my
wages -- to keep from looking at it the other way, namely that I'm
exploiting you.  But why should your consciousness _logically_
require me not to exploit you?  Again, I'm not saying it's not a
good idea to think that way, but is it _logical_?)

--
Richard Carlson        |    rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Midtown Medical Center |    {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
Atlanta, Georgia       |
(404) 881-6877         |


