Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Thought Question
Message-ID: <D38Buy.2Aw@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <3ggpqr$k33@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 17:42:34 GMT
Lines: 18
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:2059 comp.ai.philosophy:25076 comp.ai:26900

In article <3ggpqr$k33@nntp.Stanford.EDU> rubble@leland.stanford.edu (Adam Heath Clark) writes:

>>What I'm trying to stress here is that we consider the question
>>of lies behind our certainty that we are ourselves conscious.
>>What is it about our insight into our own consciousness that
>>cannot be applied to the consciousness of others?
>>
>For me, it's an Ockham's Razor-type question.  Given a system with
>complex behavior and an apparent recognition of itself as a 
>conscious entity, I conclude that it is a conscious entity because
>any other explanation would be more complicated.

Why would it be more complicated?  Of course, saying "it's
conscious" is simpler than specifying how a non-conscious system
actually works, but ultimately "it's conscious" has to be replaced
by some details that might well be more complex.

-- jd
