From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utgpu!pindor Fri Oct 30 15:17:40 EST 1992
Article 7398 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: We've Been Tricked- consciousness
Message-ID: <BwqppI.IsM@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <nijmanm.719758335@hpas7> <BwJuuE.DpD@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <BwL6LM.CL1@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <BwpHGD.EMy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 17:53:41 GMT

In article <BwpHGD.EMy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> lcarr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (lincoln carr) writes:
>In article <BwL6LM.CL1@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>an infant dog. It is only in the process of development, through interaction
>>with environment, does it gradually achieve a state of consciousness,
>>presumably a s a result of developments in its brain capacities. I wonder
>>what evidence the people who talk about consciousenss being a two-valued 
>>category (yes or no) have for a consciousness of very young infants?
>>Except for a blind belief, an idea of integer number of conscioussneses (?)
>>in the Universe seems untenable.
>>
>
>
>On rethinking your claims a bit more, I can see how you could define
>"consciousness" in such a way that it would come in degrees, like,
>say, intelligence.  However, it seems that the burden falls upon you
>to support such a claim just as I have been trying to support my
>two-valued consciousness = apperception claim.  Why is this untenable?

Case of an infant seems to me to be a good example of the difficulties in
establishing where the consciousness begins. You would presumably agree that
a fertalized human egg is not conscious and that at a certain age a child is
definitely conscious. Now, do you see a clear moment where there may be 
a change of state from a lack of consciousness to its presence? Even if you
are ready to suggest such a moment, are you sure it is unambigous? And that
most people will agree with you? The only way out I can see from this dilemma
(short of a fundamentalist solution) is to assume that the consciousness
is formed gradually.

>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"

Andrzej Pindor
-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


