Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!ddsw1!news.kei.com!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!newstand.syr.edu!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!prodigal.psych.rochester.edu!stevens
From: stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens)
Subject: Re: Thought Question
Message-ID: <1995Jan14.130814.9215@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> <3f4k1d$8ae@news.u.washington.edu> <1995Jan13.184309.6249@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3f7g9e$js3@news.u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 13:08:14 GMT
Lines: 50
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:1764 comp.ai.philosophy:24623 comp.ai:26450

In <3f7g9e$js3@news.u.washington.edu> forbis@cac.washington.edu (Gary Forbis ) writes:
>In article <1995Jan13.184309.6249@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens) writes:
>|> In <3f4k1d$8ae@news.u.washington.edu> forbis@cac.washington.edu (Gary Forbis ) writes:
>|> >In article <1995Jan12.184559.2530@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens) writes:

>|>>Is there something about brains that make
>|>>minds logically necessary?  If so, is it the structure or the physics?  Upon
>|>>what evidence does one base one's opinion?

>|> I wasn't asserting an opinion that required evidence, because my opinion
>|> was merely that it is an interesting question. :-)

>I'll certainly agree that it is a (personally) interesting queston.

>|> It is structurally, physically or logically  possible (order of increasing
>|> constraint assumed about the universe) for brains to exhibit the kind
>|> of structural complexity they do WITHOUT the emergence of consciousness/
>|> awareness?

>|> Do you have an opinion on this?

>I have several, some of which I hold as true on some days and others, not
>necessarily consistent with the first, which I hold true on other days.

>Heck, if it weren't for the strong personal evidence that I have awareness,
>I would apply Occam's Razor and deny awareness exists as it would constitute
>an unnecessary multiplication of entities.

Some people in fact seem to take this stance, such as Patricia Churchland in
some of here more wacky papers.  

Personally, I would say that given that consciousness doesn't seem to
specifically be necessary for evolutionary benefit, it is likely that it
arised as a necessary biproduct of physiological function.  After all,
if it were possible for brains without subjectivity to emerge, it seems
that they would have because there is no evolutionary pressuer wither way
(of course, it is entirely possible that they have -- how would we know?).
It could be a similar kind of emergent phenomenon to the clearness of 
H2O to electromagnetic radiation of a certain frequency -- it is not talking
within the realm of structural possibility in this universe to say,
"Imagine pure water which was not clear..." because that is a product of
its structure and physics.

Of course, blindsight could throw an entirely new angle on this (there
being at least sections of perception which can occur without "qualia")

Greg Stevens

stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu

