From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!orca!javelin.sim.es.com!biesel Tue Jun  9 10:07:22 EDT 1992
Article 6114 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!orca!javelin.sim.es.com!biesel
>From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: lights on, nobody home
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.194207.16546@javelin.sim.es.com>
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
References: <5245@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil> <BpDqqL.MMq@psych.toronto.edu> <BILL.92Jun5115711@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 19:42:07 GMT
Lines: 37

bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes:

>In article <BpDqqL.MMq@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:

>   In article <5245@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil> nba1836@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (Ken Burch) writes:
>   >
>   >So in the pursuit of a real robot, or an entity that can pass the TTT 
>   >(or TT, for that matter), we are looking to see if "somebody is home".
>   >If a thing is conscious, there must be somebody "inside" who is being
>   >conscious, experiencing the sensation of consciousness.

>   By definition.  "Subject-less consciousness" is like "dehydrated water",
>   "fat-free oil", or "McDonald's food", in other words, an oxymoron.   
>   In order for there to be consciousness, there must be a thing experiencing.
>   Experiences don't simply float around in the ether. 


>"If a thing is conscious, there must be somebody inside who is being
>conscious?????"  

>This is precisely the fallacy of the homunculus; but rarely does it
>appear so blatantly.


OK, Bill, you've convinced me. The entity labeled Bill Skaggs, known
to me only by the verbal detritus occasionally flowing across my screen,
and bearing his imprimatur, is no more than a collection of observable
responses. Any inference that Bill Skaggs is a person like myself, with
feelings, awareness, reflections upon self and individuality, and the
usual attributes of consciousness, is unwarranted. Any impression to the
contrary is fallacious, because the existence of such an aware person
is not unambiguously demonstrable to observers. No homunculus inside Bill,
no sir, no fallacies there.

Regards,
       Heiner biesel@thrall.sim.es.com
       who exists despite proofs to the contrary.


