From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!amnell Sat Oct 24 20:44:39 EDT 1992
Article 7355 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!amnell
>From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Simulated Brain
Message-ID: <1992Oct21.181823.16435@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 21 Oct 92 18:18:23 GMT
References: <BwGKx3.5oJ@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Oct21.101000.1131@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <BwHAKG.DK9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 25

In article <BwHAKG.DK9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> lcarr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
(lincoln carr) writes:

>Aren't you still placing too high a requirement on consciousness?
>Isn't, say, a child of 5 conscious?  How about 3?  How about an
>infant?  I realize that someone who grew up with no human interaction
>would most probably not be rational, but wouldn't one still be
>conscious?  With your definition, are animals conscious?  If not, why?
>If so, at what level would you guess that consciousness does not
>exist?

It seems we're simply using the word `conscious' to mean two different
things.  I was looking for an inclusive term to designate the overall
mental and experiental state of a healthy human being, whereas you
seem to take it to mean `sentience' or even mere self-awareness.  A
discussion of semantics is pointless in this group.  My efforts have
been directed at stressing the importance of a variety of factors in
the broad _Lebenswelt_ in which a person is formed and in which he or
she acts.


-- 
Marko Amnell
amnell@klaava.helsinki.fi
Graduate Student in Philosophy


