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!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <jqbD0DALG.DFy@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <CzFqn2.92t@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <MATT.94Nov30115111@physics10.berkeley.edu> <jqbD03p71.4n8@netcom.com> <3bl4ef$sqf@news-rocq.inria.fr>
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 02:22:27 GMT
Lines: 42
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97247 comp.ai.philosophy:23211 sci.philosophy.meta:15328

In article <3bl4ef$sqf@news-rocq.inria.fr>,
Mikal Ziane (Univ. Paris 5 and INRIA)  <ziane@monica.inria.fr> wrote:
>In article <jqbD03p71.4n8@netcom.com>, jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>
>
>|> Unless someone can explain what consciousness is and how we can detect it
>|> other than as a judgement about behavior, then if they make any claim that one
>|> entity is conscious but another is not based on something other than a
>|> judgement about behavior, they are taking an essentialist position toward
>|> "consciousness".  Such essentialism is not testable, it is not refutable,
>|> and the argument will never end.
>
>
>What about th following argument ?
>I think I am conscious.
>I think other people are very similar to me (genetics bla bla bla).
>Therefore I think people are conscious unless I have a specific reason to
>think the contrary (they are dead, they are hydrocephales ...).
>
>Of course this argument should be detailed but I just meant to give
>the outline.

We all agree that, whatever it means, people are conscious.  One needn't argue
it.

>Now how can we use it for computers ?
>As I said earlier for intelligence, looking at the way the computers
>works (its code fo instance) can be quite useful.

Useful in what way?  What does one look for?  (He asks again, and again, ...)
Please reread the conditional in my first sentence.

>More generally assumptions on the approach used to pass tests or
>provide such behavior in such cases can be useful if not necessary
>to infer consciousness or intelligence
>I think.

Yes, behavior.

What was your argument?
-- 
<J Q B>
