From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke Tue Apr  7 23:22:03 EDT 1992
Article 4695 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:2416 comp.ai.philosophy:4695
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: A rock implements every FSA
Keywords: functionalism, consciousness
Message-ID: <45368@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 92 18:03:25 GMT
References: <92Mar18.182726est.14357@neat.cs.toronto.edu> <1992Mar19.000544.22634@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <92Mar23.003224est.14362@neat.cs.toronto.edu> <1992Mar24.025128.9379@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.tech
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 27

In article <1992Mar24.025128.9379@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 
	chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:

 >Take a system that supports all the relevant counterfactuals,
 >required to make it implement an FSA that suffices for consciousness.
 >Now somehow take all the mechanisms that aren't used in a particular
 >computation, but that are needed to support counterfactual computations,
 >and somehow block them (...).  Now run the system on the original sequence
 >of inputs.  It produces the usual behaviour fine, and the blocked
 >mechanisms don't matter, as they were never needed.  [...]

 >It seems strange that the property of consciousness could be
 >sensitive to those blockages in unused mechanisms, which never even
 >get tested out (...).  But we already know that consciousness is strange.  

This is a fascinating point!  It seems possible to me that consciousness
could depend on the paths not followed, so to speak:  an aspect of
consciousness seems to be the sensation or awareness of alternatives, 
as if the alternative pathways are stimulated even if not taken, 
and this stimulation is part of consciousness.  The flip side 
of this is that when we go into "numb mode" while e.g. driving a car 
or washing the dishes, we are not alive to altering the routines, and
we cease to be overtly "conscious" of those activities. Perhaps part
of consciousness is the constant chatter in our heads over the
alternative possibilities at each juncture.
	I realize this speculation that does not address any of
the technical points in Calvin Ostrum's and David Chalmers' posts...


