From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!silver.ucs.indiana.edu!lcarr Sat Oct 24 20:44:51 EDT 1992
Article 7373 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!silver.ucs.indiana.edu!lcarr
>From: lcarr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (lincoln carr)
Subject: Re: We've Been Tricked- consciousness
Message-ID: <BwJuuE.DpD@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University
References: <nijmanm.719672415@hpas7> <BwHA6K.D33@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <nijmanm.719758335@hpas7>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 01:01:25 GMT
Lines: 47

In article <nijmanm.719758335@hpas7> nijmanm@prl.philips.nl (M.J. Nijman) writes:

>
>When you perceive an apple, and you are aware of that fact, there would be
>something in your mind like
>
>'I SEE AN APPLE.'
>
>When you perceive an apple, and you are not able to reflect on that, all
>that would be in you mind would be
>
>'AN APPLE'
>
>There would be no way for the perceiver to know about it's own existance.
>He would not know that it was he perceiving.

Although my own thoughts on this matter are by no means clear and
distinct and by no means set in stone, I suppose that what I'm
reaching for is the equation of consciousness with apperception.  When
one asks "What is consciousness?"  it would seem that things like
intelligence or reason, if these are even well-defined terms, would be
thrown out, for surely there are many subrational beings that one
would putatively describe as "conscious," e.g., an infant.  If
consciousness is not rationality or a certain degree of intelligence
and it is a well-defined term and means SOMETHING, then what is one
left with if not apperception?  One can describe a camera or even an
everyday calculator as taking in information, storing it, and perhaps
even doing a little processing.  Are these items conscious?  If not,
why not?

>
>It doesn't have to be. While in W1 you could oberve W2 without interacting
>with it. Just like you can observe the set of prime numbers without
>effecting the set.
>

As stated above, a computer that no one would ever refer to as
conscious can take in prime numbers.  Is it conscious?  How are you
defining the term "perceive?"  Does the computer's input meet your
definition?


-- 
Lincoln R. Carr, Computer Scientist-Philosopher    lcarr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
"Treat all rational autonomous moral agents, whether in the form of yourself
or another, never as means solely, but always as ends in themselves."
                  Immanuel Kant, from "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals"


