Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!kovsky
From: kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky)
Subject: Re: Definition of Consciousness
Message-ID: <kovskyCzF95K.Dt1@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <CLwAzy.L0z@eskimo.com> <39r3b8$8hq@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> <CzDxMw.275@festival.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:12:56 GMT
Lines: 38

In article <CzDxMw.275@festival.ed.ac.uk>,
Chris Malcolm <cam@castle.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>Nobody is yet remotely close to reducing the externals of biological
>cognitive behaviour to machinery, let alone human consciousness. It is
>simply a good working hypothesis that future research will one day
>extend the concept of machinery that far. It is a hypothesis that may
>be proved wrong in the best possible way -- by the failure of such a
>well-principled attempt that it is comprehensibly and comprehensively
>demonstrated to be impossible. To hypothesize that machine
>consciousness is possible is the correct way of founding such a
>research programme; and such a research programme is the best possible
>way of answering the question "is the hypothesis true?".
>

	"The hearsay knowledge that everything in Nature is subject to 
mechanical laws often tempts people to say that Nature is either one big 
machine or else a conglomeration of machines.  But there are very few 
machines in Nature."  Gilbert Ryle, <The Concept of Mind> (section titled 
"The Bogey of Mechanism)  (In <Consciousness Explained>, Dennett cites 
Ryle as a source for the assertion that "dualism is forlorn," but he has 
not, in my opinion, sufficiently extended the consequences of Ryle's 
position.)

	Another view is that science is advanced by competition between
different hypotheses.  It is, in my view, possible to approach these
questions with the hypothesis that consciousenss is not reducible to
mechanism.  Of course, I agree that no hypothesis is "criminal."  There's 
a lot of time and money wasted on pursuing poorly conceived projects, but 
that's hardly "criminal."   The waste may be "despicable," but not the 
endeavor.


-- 

*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *   * 
    Bob Kovsky          |  A Natural Science of Freedom 
    kovsky@netcom.com   |  Materials available by anonymous ftp
                        |  At ftp.netcom.com/pub/freeedom
*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *   * 
