From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!princeton!rutgers!uwvax!daffy!xrap3.ssec.wisc.edu!tobis Wed Sep 23 16:54:33 EDT 1992
Article 6990 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.skeptic:20267 comp.ai.philosophy:6990
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!princeton!rutgers!uwvax!daffy!xrap3.ssec.wisc.edu!tobis
>From: tobis@xrap3.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Message-ID: <1992Sep20.180454.4161@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 20 Sep 92 18:04:54 GMT
References: <1992Sep8.221034.5533@meteor.wisc.edu> <1992Sep9.181357.8639@cco.caltech.edu> <1992Sep13.194856.21976@meteor.wisc.edu> <1992Sep17.181358.1828@Princeton.EDU>
Sender: news@daffy.cs.wisc.edu (The News)
Organization: Space Science and Engineering Center, UW Madison
Lines: 50

In article <1992Sep17.181358.1828@Princeton.EDU>, rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep13.194856.21976@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
|> [about unobservability of consciousness...]
|> 
|> >consiousness, we know, by observations irreducible to physical science,
|> >that it exists, and yet we cannot observe it in a physical context. I have
|> >no evidence, physical or otherwise, for this extraphysical component of 
|> >chemistry. But I know that I exist as a sentient being, even though such
|> >existence is unverifiable by anyone but myself.
|> 
|> I'm looking at evidence of consciousness in the text on my monitor, more
|> particularly in the structure therein.  What reason do you have, other
|> than traditions of high school level "science" to say there is no
|> evidence, physical or *otherwise* for consciousness?  Where do you think
|> that structure comes from?  Some jar of chemicals, some banging about of
|> electrons?  I get the feeling/impression that some complaints about lack
|> of evidence for consciousness are simply frustrated wishes for a
|> yardstick -- a spectrascope or magnetometer or some other gadget with a
|> calibrated scale.  If you open the range a bit, start thinking about
|> information and systems, say, you may find ways to deal more reasonably
|> with complexity, hence consciousness.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "high school level", but indeed I
am using a narrow interpretation of science which limits its scope to
purely objective phenomena. What you take to be evidence of my consciousness
is such only as perceived in your consciousness, and as such is purely
subjective. Perhaps, though, I am only a very cleverly implemented
automaton with no existential reality. You can never be certain in the
same way you are certain of your own awareness.

I am NOT arguing that rational thought should not be applied to phenomena
of consciousness because there is no consciometer. I am arguing that
the idea that consciousness can be explained in some objective way is
at best profoundly premature (and I continue to suspect that it is
undecideable). 

To apply reason to consciousness we must take consciousness
to be axiomatic. This is a long way from taking it to be explained.

The equivalence that you draw between complexity and consciousness is
not demonstrated, and I suspect it cannot be demonstrated. If you wish 
to treat it as an assumption and see where it leads, I have no objection.
This is science if and only if you make your assumption explicit.
Taking it as a fact rather than an assumption is hubris of the most
profound imaginable magnitude, and is not science at all. (IMHO, of course)

I think we should move this discussion to comp.ai.philosophy where it
belongs, btw.

mt (<-- not an algorithm)


