From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!silver.ucs.indiana.edu!lcarr Sat Oct 24 20:44:38 EDT 1992
Article 7352 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!silver.ucs.indiana.edu!lcarr
>From: lcarr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (lincoln carr)
Subject: Re: Simulated Brain
Message-ID: <BwHAKG.DK9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University
References: <1992Oct19.133435.18702@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <BwGKx3.5oJ@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Oct21.101000.1131@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 15:48:16 GMT
Lines: 33

In article <1992Oct21.101000.1131@klaava.Helsinki.FI> amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:

>
>Please note the distinction between the genealogy of conscioussness and
>factors necessary for its upkeep.  When you bring up the Robinson Crusoe
>counter-example to my definition, you should keep it mind that sensory
>stimuli and a more or less healthy childhood of interaction with fellow
>human beings went into making you what you are today.  Yes, you can take
>them away afterwards but this does not change the fact that they were
>instrumental in forming you as a conscious being.  I think that a child
>deprived of all sensory stimuli (who `grew up in a barrel' as they say
>in Finland) would fail to achieve a full, healthy conscious state on par
>with other people.  An explanation of consciousness must take these
>historical elements into consideration.  It might even be necessary to go
>further, and claim that a conscious being must have a certain kind of
>evolutionary background, but this appears open.
>

Aren't you still placing too high a requirement on consciousness?
Isn't, say, a child of 5 conscious?  How about 3?  How about an
infant?  I realize that someone who grew up with no human interaction
would most probably not be rational, but wouldn't one still be
conscious?  With your definition, are animals conscious?  If not, why?
If so, at what level would you guess that consciousness does not
exist?



-- 
Lincoln R. Carr, Computer Scientist-Philosopher    lcarr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
"Treat all rational autonomous moral agents, whether in the form of yourself
or another, never as means solely, but always as ends in themselves."
                  Immanuel Kant, from "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals"


