Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!satisfied.elf.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!prodigal.psych.rochester.edu!stevens
From: stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens)
Subject: Re: Thought Question
Message-ID: <1995Jan14.043829.29350@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@galileo.cc.rochester.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
References: <3f23q4$oc4@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <1995Jan12.184559.2530@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3f5nuu$mks@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 04:38:29 GMT
Lines: 54
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:1760 comp.ai.philosophy:24618 comp.ai:26442

In <3f5nuu$mks@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> prem@ix.netcom.com (Prem Sobel) writes:
>In <1995Jan12.184559.2530@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> 
>stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens) writes: 
>>In <3f23q4$oc4@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> prem@ix.netcom.com (Prem Sobel) 
>writes:...

>>>It seems fantastic that in such a world life could survive at all.
>>>The body is so surprisingly frail. Look at what happens to a Leper
>>>just because the sensation is removed. 
>>
>>Note, the original poster didn't say lack of reaction or 
>>responsiveness to stimulus --note the second sentence.  This isn't 
>>talking about a failure
>>of neurological mechanisms, it's talking about a lack of subjective 
>>experience, while all else remains the same.
>>While it is an interesting thought experiment, and brings up the point
>> that there is no evolutionary benefit to consciousness ...

>You have got to be kidding !!!! While it is possible to build a very
>accurate servo mechanism, perhaps with a computer controlling it,
>there is no way for that machine design to implement something that
>can anticipate and respond to any circumstance. Only living and
>especially thinking conscious animals manage to do this very well.
>Those that fail don't survive. Connsciousness is of survival benifit
>to say the least.

Okay, you're missing the point again, I think.  Consider a machine which
had no consicouness, but was programmed to behave EXACTLY as you do. No.
we don't have the technology, and possibly there is not enough memory 
capacity in the universe to do such a program without the kind of process
the gives rise to consciousness, but this is a thought-experiment, right?

I think what was being asked for us to consider was this: Consider a machine
that was programmed to respond to stimuli the same as us, but had no
consciousness.  There would be no evolutionary reason for it to be
selected out, with us superior, if its behaviors were the same, and all
it was lacking was subjectivity.  Thus, it seems that there is no
evolutionary benefit to subjective experience per se.

Now, you may find that subjective experience is something that coincides
with our physical reactions, but many people have questioned whether
this is necessarily so -- i.e., the artificial intelligence simulation
debates about whether a computer that ACTED conscious would BE conscious.
It is exactly that debate that is being addressed.  You comments about
the evolutionary disadvantages of being a leper are interesting, but
not finally the point.  We are talking about something that can and
does equally respond to environmental stimuli, but has no subjective
experience or "qualia."  Such a thing, we have no advantage (evolutionarily)
over.  Procreation and survival do not depend on mind, but on behavior.

Greg Stevens

stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu

