Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and consciousness
Message-ID: <CzsCCC.3DF@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <3aukr2$t3h@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3avt19$3er@news1.shell> <3b0176$hu8@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 18:50:36 GMT
Lines: 28

In article <3b0176$hu8@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>When people disagree about objective matters, there are objective
>tests that can be made to settle the issue.  What objective tests do
>you propose for establishing consciousness?  Be sure to specify tests
>that would work equally for robots as for humans.

What happens if someone does not accept the objective test?
How is this different from the subjective case where you say:

  That does not follow at all.  If I am debating with you, then from my
  perspective my opinion is better than yours.  From your perspective I
  imagine that your opinion is better than mine.  A third party
  observer may decide that one opinion is as good as the other -- or
  perhaps the third party will use other criteria.

Or: how do we know whether we have an objective test or not?

>Gray areas in objective issues are gray because the objective tests
>are not sufficiently accurate to settle the question.  These issues
>are settled once the tests have been sufficiently refined.  In the
>case of consciousness, there are no tests.

There are tests people use now, and every prospect of improving
them.  What makes them not objective?  That people disagree?
People can disagree about anything.

-- jeff
