From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdat!swf Fri Oct 30 15:17:42 EST 1992
Article 7400 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdat!swf
>From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: We've Been Tricked- consciousness
Message-ID: <1316@tdat.teradata.COM>
Date: 27 Oct 92 00:23:40 GMT
References: <nijmanm.719758335@hpas7> <BwJuuE.DpD@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <BwL6LM.CL1@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <BwpHGD.EMy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@tdat.teradata.COM
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit
Lines: 19

In article <BwpHGD.EMy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> lcarr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (lincoln carr) writes:
|
|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?

I rather suspect that even what you call apperception can come in degrees.

That is the scope and detail of the data on perception that are maintained
could vary from nil to far more even than humans maintain.
Much like other senses/sensations can vary in degree - 'sight' can vary from
a very minimal "there is light over there" to the detailed image formation
of humans and eagles.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com


