Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!rutgers!argos.montclair.edu!hubey
From: hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and consciousness
Message-ID: <hubey.785760927@pegasus.montclair.edu>
Sender: root@argos.montclair.edu (Operator)
Organization: SCInet @ Montclair State
References: <vlsi_libCzHB5I.Fn7@netcom.com> <3aj4a9$9ct@mp.cs.niu.edu>   <3b0176$hu8@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1994Nov24.121032.27675@oxvaxd>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 10:55:27 GMT
Lines: 58

econrpae@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>This view, that a property cannot be objective unless there are proper
>scientific tests for it, is a brand of verificationism.

Or it could be called operationalism a la Bridgeman. Since there
seems to be such a big problem defining what consciousness is
why not point to [describe] some set of operations [in the
physical world, not in someone's imagination] which even if
not perfect could at least be objective. Anyone who has the
same instruments, and runs through the same operations should
get the same results under the same experimental conditions.
Then it doesn't make much difference what you call it; at
least you have something to talk about in a more quantitative
manner.


>The main problem with verificationism is that it prejudges the course of
>science. OK so there is no scientific test _now_ which can tell if a
>person/robot is conscious, but that does not mean we will never find one. If we
>do find one, consciousness will _always_ have been an objective property, it
>won't suddenly change.

At this point it's not even clear if consciousness is possessed only
by humans and say not by cows or by ants?

It's been found that when somethings are difficult to define, it's
often easier to describe via examples; fuzzy examples. Say the
property of being a "fruit" may be judged by a large group of people as

	apple 	9
	tomato  1
	orange 5
	etc etc

The problem is that even asking for a clear definition of "chair" is
difficult enough. Why produce such mess attempting to produce
these one liners that work only for math? What's a chair"
Something to sit on? Suppose I sit on a table or a log? Does it
have to have arms? Does it have to be wood, plastic or metal?
Is a bean-bag a chair? So on and so on...

How about putting some numbers in the range 0-10 for whether these
have consciousness:

	Monkey
	Cow
	Lizard
	Ant
	Bacteria
	Virus



--
						-- Mark---
....we must realize that the infinite in the sense of an infinite totality, 
where we still find it used in deductive methods, is an illusion. Hilbert,1925
