Newsgroups: alt.atheism,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!uhog.mit.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!dcs.gla.ac.uk!unix.brighton.ac.uk!mjs14
From: mjs14@unix.brighton.ac.uk (shute)
Subject: TT again (was Re: Is there a spiritual force etc.?)
Message-ID: <1994Oct3.130943.3995@unix.brighton.ac.uk>
Keywords: n
Organization: University of Brighton, UK
References: <19940922.181109.533@almaden.ibm.com> <1994Sep26.185332.28245@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> <1994Sep29.145854.16970@ttd.teradyne.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 13:09:43 GMT
Lines: 28

>In article <1994Sep26.185332.28245@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> billy@eecg.toronto.edu (Vi Chi Chan) writes:
>>Say if I tie a person on a chair, not allowing him/her
>>to make response other than talking. The way I talk to him/her and get his/her
>>response will be absolutely the same if I was interacting with a "very smart"
>>ELIZA, how do I tell if such an object possesses consciousness?

In article <1994Sep29.145854.16970@ttd.teradyne.com> martin@ttd.teradyne.com (Michael Martin) writes:
>First you have to define conciousness and intelegence.  If the subject can
>meet all criteria you have defined, then it meets your definition of 
>conciousness.

I don't see this at all.
I've spent the last 38 years going around identifying intelligent and
conscious things to talk to, and unintelligent and unconscious things
to not bother talking to.

But I most certainly do *not* have a definition of intelligence and/or
consciousness to offer you.

(And, no, not all the things that I talk to fall into the class "people",
so you can't claim that that is the distinction that I use.  You probably
could claim that I talk to all people/animals/plants/cars/rocks that
seem to react to my initial attempts to communicate with them...
but this would still not solve the Eliza vs 'tied up person' problem).
-- 

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all

