From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Fri Jan 31 10:27:24 EST 1992
Article 3306 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and panpsychism (was Re: Virtual Person?)
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.170517.29673@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Jan29.001107.20084@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Jan29.164812.2514@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Jan29.193358.19320@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 17:05:17 GMT

In article <1992Jan29.193358.19320@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:

[a rather extensive reply to some of the issues that I raised, most of
which I'm still digesting.  However, I wanted to pursue one specific point,
because I think it is important for the plausibility of the perspective
Dave presents.  My apologies if this takes the comments out of context...]



>In article <1992Jan29.164812.2514@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>
>>But seriously, would you also accept that rocks have consciousness?  
>>After all, they behave similarly to a thermostat - if the temperature
>>goes up, they change state (expand), if the temperature goes down,
>>they change to a different state (contract), and if the temperature
>>stays the same, then they stay in the same state.  Note that, at the 
>>very least, this is what the main "information processing" component of
>>the thermostat does (usually a bimetallic strip).  If this is the case,
>>then *every* hunk of matter is *at least* as "conscious" as a thermostat, 
>>and has *at least* the same "information processing" capacity.   Now
>>we *definitely* have panpsychism!
>
>Insofar as there are information-processing systems within rocks, then
>those systems have (very limited) qualia.  I wouldn't put the point
>by saying that rocks have qualia, as rocks (unlike thermostats) are not
>individuated as information-processing systems.

What determines individuation?  These has the distinct odor of an ad hoc
distinction to me.  

I think that the answer to this question is important, because (as you no
doubt can see), if a rock is an information-processing system in this
sense, then so is any part of the rock.  Then the problem becomes determining
*what* is having the qualia.


BTW, I would just like to mention that I have greatly appreciated Dave's
carefully considered contributions in this thread.  It's a joy to debate
with someone who knows something about an area, and actually takes it
seriously. 


- michael



