From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ukma!nntp.msstate.edu!memstvx1!langston Fri Jan 31 10:27:14 EST 1992
Article 3291 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!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ukma!nntp.msstate.edu!memstvx1!langston
>From: langston@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Strong AI and Panpsychismdir
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.021105.1157@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 92 02:11:05 -0600
References: <1992Jan29.031823.6624@oracorp.com> <1992Jan29.170943.4706@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Jan29.210141.26133@cs.yale.edu> <1992Jan29.214150.1709@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Memphis State University
Lines: 60

In article <1992Jan29.214150.1709@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:

>                              ...it seems entirely coherent to
> me that God, if She had so chosen, could have created a universe
> physically identical to this one, but completely lacking 
> consciousness.  Therefore the existence of consciousness involves
> a property of the universe over and above the physical properties.
> 
> [Note, by contrast: God could *not* have created a universe physically
> identical to this one, but completely lacking e.g. life.  That's
> what makes consciousness special -- it's a property of the universe
> that's surprising, even once all the physical facts are granted.  Whereas
> all other facts about the universe, e.g. biological facts, seem to
> follow immediately from the physical facts by conceptual necessity.]
> 
> I'd be very happy to be proven wrong about this, and to be shown
> how materialism could provide an explanation of consciousness,
> but I've thought about this for a long, long time, with all my
> prior sympathies lying in the materialist direction, and I
> simply don't see how it's possible.

  If, indeed, consciousness is over and above the physical properties, why is
it the case that consciousness can be influenced and controlled by these same
properties?  Isn't it just as plausible to consider consciousness an
emergent property brought about by the various physical components?  I am far
from being coaxed to either side of the materialist/qualia fence.  Catch me on
an odd Tuesday, I may be one way or the other.  Ashcraft, in Human Memory and
Cognition, seems to want to reduce consciousness to nothing more than the
focusing of attention (and comes close to resurrecting the homunculus he tries
so hard to avoid), while others seem determined that consciousness remain
shrouded in mystery.
  Why is it appropriate to discuss the 'consciousness' of a thermostat or a
soda machine in materialistic terms, and not the human mind?
  
  Just for the sake of argument, if the human mind could be considered a
very, VERY complex dynamic system, some combination of data in the state
vector would have to embody consciousness.  Granted, you couldn't point to
one or to variables and say, "See? This describes consciousness".  But it
would be represented there, somewhere.  It would not exist, however, unless
the system was allowed to evolve over time.

  It just seems as though since it is very difficult to look at the 
independent functions of mind, or even of brain, and point out consciousness,
people are willing to say that consciousness must be something different by
orders of magnitude.

  Perhaps Ashcaft is right, and consciousness is merely a function of
attention focus.  And perhaps trying to focus the attention on consciousness
itself would cause infinite regression.

Just a thought or two... 
-- 

Mark C. Langston                                  "What concerns me is not the
Psychology Department                              way things are, but rather
Memphis State University                           the way people think things
LANGSTON@MEMSTVX1.MEMST.EDU                        are."     -Epictetus

     "...a brighter tomorrow?!?  How about a better TODAY?"  -me



