From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!gsusgi1.gsu.edu!gsusgi1.gsu.edu!accran Fri Jan 31 10:27:19 EST 1992
Article 3299 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!gsusgi1.gsu.edu!gsusgi1.gsu.edu!accran
>From: accran@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Robert Nehmer)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and Panpsychism
Message-ID: <accran.696787869@gsusgi1.gsu.edu>
Organization: Georgia State University
References: <1992Jan28.165322.25735@colorado.edu> <V9eBFB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 16:11:09 GMT
Lines: 36

rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:

>>     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?

It's been awhile since I've picked up the _Critique_, but from my 
understanding of Kant's correspondence concerning his reasons for
writing the second one as well as some subsequent comments by others,
he was stretching to determine a limit to the inherent instumentality
in his _Critique of Pure Reason_. And he knew this was the case. The
argument, the logic, as I've been able to make it out, is that an
individual conscious entity (with an appreciation of the improbable 
wonder of its own existence - this is important) will, of necessity
(i.e., logically), "honour" Others of its own type. This is partially
because that entity realises that the problems of the categoricals
with which it filters external stimuli are also encountered by the
Other. So the two are "closer" in a sense than non-conscious entities
since they are both filtered and filtering. Logically, they should
be "allies," brothers/sisters under the skin, so to speak. Ah, I think
I remember the title now:_Critique of Moral Necessity_. I hope this
isn't too foggy, Kant uses a bit more text to get the points accross
;-)

Rob Nehmer
Georgia State



