Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!news.mailorder.com!beach.silcom.com!usenet
From: redrick@silcom.com (Richard Nielsen)
Subject: Re: Computers--Next stage in evolution?
Message-ID: <D8wK8H.4HE@beach.silcom.com>
Sender: usenet@beach.silcom.com
Organization: SB Communications - Public Access Internet
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent v0.55
References: <3p1cij$t65@usenet.rpi.edu> <3p8cd6$n4p@sun.rhbnc.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 00:31:38 GMT
Lines: 63

Jeremy Winterson <J.Winterson@rhbnc.ac.uk> wrote:

>    I have just joined this discussion so I might be raising things that have
>already been covered, but why do you think that consciousness cannot be simply
>a by-product of evolution? Suppose for a second that all things are conscious
>to a certain degree. Plants are conscious of their existance, but the definition 
>of consciousness as we use it cannot be applied there because they do not think as
>humans do. Next, take a cat. It seeks food, seeks reproduction, and avoids pain
>just as we do. Is the cat aware of its existence? Why not? Now lets take the example
>of any of the chimpanzees and apes that have been tought to sign. They take
>everything one step further by being able to communicate with us humans by using
>a system that has been tought to them. Are they conscious of their existence? It
>would sure seem like it. And what of the severely retarded human. He can barely
>communicate his wants and cannot speak, He sees things he wants and grasps for them.
>He feels hunger and complains to let his parents know about it. Is he conscious?
>We take it for granted that he is, but what is the difference between him and a
>gorilla, for example, that people refuse to believe that animals are aware of their
>own self? An extremely intelligent human might be able to easly grasp concepts and
>ideas that would remain foreign to a person of lesser intelligence. That could be
>considered a higher level of consciousness. What do you think?

I think most of the folks who are determined to have an absolute line
between humans and all others are deliberately fuzzy about what they
mean by the words like "conciousness".  I read long articles, books
even, that seek to determine where conciousness comes from and which
animals are concious without defining "conciousness".

The problem is that whenever you give a definition, many other animals
can be found that fit it.  AI scientists can build machines that fit
it.  So those who insist that they (humans) are some kind of special
supernaturally created beings will respond, "No, that's not what I
meant."  To them we must respond:  Define your terms then.  What *do*
you mean?  Then the AI people will build it and the biologists will
find it.

What could be condsidered a "higher level" of conciousness is, I
think, subjective.  I would be arrogant to think that I had a higher
level of conciousnes than anyone, or any thing, else.  A cat is
obviously concious, self-concious to the point of neurosis, and, like
me, quite capable of telling lies about itself.  

Bear in mind that in everything I've said the word "intelligence"
might be substituted for the word "conciousness" and the arguments
still hold.

Also, you've noted that chimpanzees can use language.  Rather, they
*used* to be able to use language.  Since then (surprise, surprise!)
the linguists have changed (and fuzzied) the definition of the word
"language".  The experiments have also been defunded.

I am confident that should we one day encounter beings capable of
remolding entire star systems, some of us will say that they are
neither concious nor intelligent but are merely reacting out of some
mechanical instinct.

Cheers, -Rick

--
  
  *lovesexboozetreesstarsflowerspuppieskittenspeacemozart*
  *rainbowsshakespeareandyesisaidyesiwillyes*GREENPEACE*
  *    Richard Nielsen             redrick@silcom.com*

