Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Thought Question
Message-ID: <D45Mxr.M45@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <3gvigc$g3h@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <3hq1v2$712@oznet03.ozemail.com.au> <3hu3r5$f71@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 17:22:38 GMT
Lines: 38
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:2476 comp.ai.philosophy:25630 comp.ai:27565

In article <3hu3r5$f71@nntp.Stanford.EDU> rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Heath Clark) writes:
>Alan Tonisson (tonisson@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
>: rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Heath Clark) wrote:
>: >
>: > Yes, but I can't imagine a non-conscious entity that could converse with
>: > me and talk about philosophy or consciousness.  Unless, of course there
>: > was a conscious entity controlling it.
>
>: I can imagine such an entity.  For an entity to be able to converse
>: about consciousness it just needs to have a model of consciousness.  I 
>: don't see
>: why a non-conscious entity cannot have a semantic model of consciousness 
>: and be
>: able to converse about it.
>
>I guess I would say that a semantic model sophisticated enough to 
>really converse would both require and imply consciousness.  If a
>computer can discuss an idea it's never heard before and demonstrate
>that it understands the ramifications of that idea and is able to
>adjust its own personal set of ideas to incorporate that idea, I 
>would say it is conscious.  It may just have a 'semantic model' but in
>that case I'd say that's all we have, too.

But why would it have to be conscious in the "what is it like to be
it" sense?  Why would it have to have any subjective experience at
all?

>I know this argument has been misused to death in the God-as-Watchmaker
>argument, but if you run into a watch on the beach you would presume
>that someone made it.  Similarly, when I run into well fleshed-out ideas,
>I can imagine no other realistic scenario than that they were 
>constructed by conscious minds.

Why is it unrealistic that a non-conscious entity might have a
model of consciousnes and be able to converse about it, add new
ideas, etc?  Why is consciousness necessary?

-- jeff
