From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!gsusgi1.gsu.edu!gsusgi1.gsu.edu!accran Wed Feb  5 11:55:36 EST 1992
Article 3336 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!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.696879325@gsusgi1.gsu.edu>
Organization: Georgia State University
References: <accran.696787869@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> <NV1eFB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 17:35:25 GMT
Lines: 52

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

>accran@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Robert Nehmer) writes:

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

[some deleting]

>> 
>> 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

[more deletions]

>>  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

>No matter how many times you go over this it still looks more like
>a species of Hume's empathy -- the non-logical alternative he
>proposed and to which Kant was largely reacting.  The fact that
>you are in the same existential boat as me in terms of filtering
>information through the categories of your mind may make me see
>you as similar, which is a logical process in terms of sets or
>classes, but the additional notion that I should then treat you
>differently than an entity that is less similar is a normative
>(prescriptive, deontic, whatever) notion rather than a logical one
>and seems to be a kind of descriptive statement of a prescriptive
>feeling.

I told you he was stretching it. Most people, Kant included, have never
been completely satisfied by this. Remember that it was Hume, as you
state, who woke Kant from his "dogmatic slumber." That's when he 
wrote the first Critique. But then someone (or maybe several people),
complained to him that he really hadn't answered Hume. He agreed and 
wrote the second Critique. But it's never satisfied as a logic of 
moral necessity. All I will say personally is that I understand what
Kant is trying to say, and if everyone "saw" experience that way, I
would too. But it's a damned dangerous position to hold since you can
only give it to others, you can't "force" them to give it to you. Yet
Kant's program has had some interesting side effects none-the-less,
nicht wahr?

Nehmer
GSU



