From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!alberta!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Tue Feb 11 15:25:37 EST 1992
Article 3574 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!alberta!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Multiple Personality Disorder and Strong AI
Keywords: consciousness,functionalism
Message-ID: <1992Feb7.064055.20000@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 7 Feb 92 06:40:55 GMT
References: <1992Feb4.145530.1306@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Feb6.182526.5764@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb6.184407.9470@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 57

In article <1992Feb6.184407.9470@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>In article <1992Feb6.182526.5764@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb4.145530.1306@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>
>>>Are you saying that you 'know' you have qualia (or whatever)?
>>>Then please tell me if I have qualia, or better yet show me your qualia!
>>
>>Yes, I "know" I have qualia.  So did Descartes (you remember the cogito,
>>right?).  If you honestly believe that you *don't* have certain knowledge
>>that you have qualia, you must in the grip of ideological psychosis.
>>
I am sorry I was not more clear, but Descartes is old news! As I don't
intend to rehash my first year philosophy I must point out that your
use of the word knowledge seems to be based on subjectivity (Existentialism?)
Hopefully you or someone else can provide me with more evidence (or basis)
for the belief that qualia cannot exist independent from living beings.
What exactly brings you into such a belief, I mean, when I was 5 years old
I believed that there where monsters under my bed, but this seems to have 
been disproven positively!

>I think Antun has confused knoledge with its demonstration. Certainly its
>at least conceivable that I can have knowledge that I can't prove to
>someone else (e.g., trying to describe red to the blind, etc.) Michael
>cannot prove his qualia to you, but that in no way undercuts his own
>knowledge of it. 

Indeed you cannot describe RED to the blind man, but you CAN prove to him
that it exists! (How, simple have him hold two cards one red, the other green
and point out to him the red one! Now have him mix up the cards, keeping track o
of the one you pointed out as red. Point it out again, he will be simply
amazed that you indeed do have knowledge that he does not!) Now what we
need is some kind of similar experiment for qualia!
>
Excuse my ignorance of the topic of qualia, I am not a philosopher (I just
played one in university.) This is exactly what I insist, that you cannot 
have knowledge that is unprovable! All knowledge must be of someTHING,
therefore all knowledge can be proven by reference to that thing.
Even if the reference is to the senses! I know there are many cases of
people with a arm amputated that have felt that they have pain in their
phantom arm. If this is the kind of knowledge that you are talking about
then I must ask "what is this knowledge about?" It fits your description
of knowledge that is not available to another, however, I would disaggree
that this knowledge is not available to the outside observer. Indeed the
outside observer could not say "Oh, I feel a pain in john's arm!" but it
would indeed make sense for him to say "I know john has a pain in his arm!"
The whole thing boils down to semantics!

If I understand you, you seem to be saying that I can have knowledge, but
a machine can never have knowledge! Why??
>-- 
>Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
>Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
>University of Toronto
>---------------------

I must also appologize for the spelling and content of the above, but
I am currently writing this on a line editor.


