Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!news.chalmers.se!news.gu.se!gd-news!d6243
From: sa209@utb.shv.hb.se (Claes Andersson)
Subject: Re: Thought Question  -  david.txt [1/1]
Message-ID: <1995Jan19.193502.23775@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se>
Sender: usenet@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: d6243.shv.hb.se
Organization: Dept. of economy and computer science.
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #2.1
References: <3f23q4$oc4@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <3fdltb$6ot@cato.Direct.CA>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 01:51:49 GMT
Lines: 79
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:1869 comp.ai.philosophy:24815 comp.ai:26647

aturner@Direct.CA (Allan Turner) wrote:
>--*-*-*- Next Section -*-*-*
>Content-Type: text/plain
>
>In article <3f23q4$oc4@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, prem@ix.netcom.com (Prem Sobel) says:
>>
>>In <sa209.105@utb.shv.hb.se> sa209@utb.shv.hb.se (Claes Andersson)
>>writes:
>>
>>> Picture a world with humans who lacks conciousness and self awareness.
>>>They just respond to a stimulus with reactions in exactly  the same way
>>> as we do. It happens in the same way as they have memory, instincts
>>>etc. just like us but they are not at all self aware. ...
>>
>
>--*-*-*- Next Section -*-*-*
>
>Hi.  This is my second message to anyone but myself due to the fact that
>just acquired internet access, so if I screw up, don't flame me!!
>
>Anyway, this is a forum about consciousness, so why are you following
>a discussion about a complete lack of consciousness? How much further
>off subject could you possibly get? I know this is your guy's forum
>and you have a right to talk about what you want. And I support that
>100%, but geeeeez, it just doesn't seem quite right.

Well.. eh.. I see that it is hard just to throw oneself into a discussion without
knowing the thread backword but anyway. We discuss why conciousness
exist at all, and with that I don't mean what we usually call conscious behavior,
I'm of the opinion that such behaviour can emerge without self-awareness. Of
course, such lifeform behaves in a self-aware way but the qualitative state is
another.

However, what is mostly off the subject arms? A broken arm or a car? Rethink
what you wrote...

>	But since this is my first post to a usenet newsgroup I'm also
>going to stick my neck out and offer an opinion to anyone who is inter-
>ested. As consciousness exists, the question you guys are talking about
>is - is it produced by physics and biology or is it some spiritual thing?

  That is often discussed. If it is a spiritual think? There are no such thing
as a supernatural thing, there are only unknown things. Well, assuming
that it is something that a deity has constructed we get the other question:
Why and how did the deity got conscious? The answer will be: "You can't
know anything about a deity and it would be blasphemy to question its
existance based on that you can't understand it!". A very convenient answer,
it doesn't give any explainations, it just prevents new question!


>My point is that humans as observers of the physical universe have failed
>to observe any evidence of any activity of consciousness outside that
>of biological forms. Think of it. When was the last time you saw a rock
>act intelligently? You might say that a rock can't act. But I have to say
>that it really does- it follows the laws of physics. Not much creativity
>there hunh?
	A rock don't act since it behaves in a way that anything can behave.
That's just the rules of the game, but when the whole is greater than the sum
of its parts, it gets interesting. A stone is totally predictable, many stones
aren't but that's chaos therory.

>	So biology is the next area. Biological creatures all behave with
>some sort of consciousness. Humans are obviously very different from
>animals. And there are also differences between other species. So there
>IS consciousness there regardless of wherever it might be found. One
>question might be asked - is consciousness innate to biology or is it
>conversly that biology is innate to consciousness? I have to say the
>latter in my opinion.

 Well, that's the question.. with consciousness? Well, ordered anyway and
possibly self preserving. You see, with a computer simulation of life it is
quite easy to evolve "creatures" that behaves lifelike without any memory
etc. and if they don't have any memory they can't have any psychical continuity
and therefor no conciousness but still the act like they were conciosous. This
rasises the question: WHY then do we experience the qualitative state of self
awareness.


Claes Andersson. University of Bors. Sweden
