Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!jobone!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newshost.marcam.com!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!csus.edu!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <jqbD0IDIA.D3E@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <jqbD03p71.4n8@netcom.com> <jqbD0DByv.H6t@netcom.com> <D0EpC9.4vB@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <D0GJMn.Ct1@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 20:13:22 GMT
Lines: 46
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97489 comp.ai.philosophy:23406 sci.philosophy.meta:15419

In article <D0GJMn.Ct1@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>,
Andrzej Pindor <pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>In article <D0EpC9.4vB@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <jqbD0DByv.H6t@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>..............
>>>>Actually, I don't want to do any such thing.  I am merely suggesting
>>>>possibilities for criteria other than the TT.  If you present me with
>>>>a TT-passing program, then you'll see how or if I want to challenge its
>>>>consciousness.  
>>>
>>>It seems to me that you are quibbling, but I'll resist quibbling back.
>>
>>I reject your tendentious description of what I'm doing.  "Want to
>>challenge the consciousness of programs", "scrounging around",
>>"signs of `consciousness'" -- give me a break!  I don't think it's
>>a quibble that when you describe what I'm doing or what my views
>>are you come up with something I don't recognize.

I keep getting responses to apparent postings of Dalton's that aren't
posted here. I don't know whether they have been cancelled, or whether there's
some delay on the net, or what.

Anyway, it *seems to me* that the distinction between "challenge" and "merely
suggesting ... criteria" is a quibble.  But I said I would resist quibbling
back.  Dalton, of course, ignores the fact that I only expressed *my seeming*
and proceeds to quibble anyway.

The question is, faced with a non-human AI, what *will* Dalton do?  How *will*
he respond?  He seems to be saying that I can't claim that he would
want to challenge the consciousness of programs by scrounging around inside
for signs of consciousness because he is only suggesting looking at listings
as a *possible* alternative criterion to the TT.  I think calling this a
quibble is being polite about it.

>>Now, why is linguistic behavior a good sign of consciousness?  I'd
>>be willing to discuss that, if you want.

I don't believe Dalton is willing to discuss it at all.  When he is asked
whether or not it is true that he uses textual exchange to make judgements
about the mental life of others, he responds "oh, you expect me to accept the
TT, eh?".  That is not a good faith discussion, in my book.


-- 
<J Q B>
