From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Mon Jan  6 10:30:09 EST 1992
Article 2453 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Ignore Searle and be happier
Message-ID: <1991Dec30.235437.31112@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 30 Dec 91 23:54:37 GMT
References: <1991Dec30.185605.23355@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991Dec30.193339.28438@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Dec30.214930.66372@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 42

In article <1991Dec30.214930.66372@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> peterson@debussy.cs.colostate.edu (james peterson) writes:
>In article <1991Dec30.193339.28438@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>
>> It is a mistake to get hung up on consciousness when it is something so
>>vague that it cannot even be measured.
>
>A curious remark.  It suggests that the only things that are "real," or
>genuine, or not fictions, are things that can be "measured" (implying
>quantification).  This strikes me as a presupposition worthy of questioning.

 Thanks for putting words in my mouth :-).  I don't recall stating that
consciousness was not real.  Nor do I recall requiring quantification.
Indeed, I believe that an excessive insistence in quantification is one
of the faults of our society.

 My point is this:

   If you manage to create a robot which duplicates all the behaviour of
   a human, you will still have a devil of a job convincing anybody that
   it has a "real consciousness" rather than merely a "simulated
   consciousness", since there is no way of distinguishing.  Consequently
   I believe you would be better of getting on with the job of creating
   the robot, and forgetting all about consciousness as a necessary
   component.  Consciousness is a diversion which merely distracts you
   from the important issues.

>It also reminds me that this attitude can be traced back to Descartes,
>who was the father of modern scientific method inasmuch as he explicitly
>stated that *all* problems are solvable by breaking them into context-
>free primitive quantifiable elements.  This is the credo of modern science,
>modern man and of Strong AI.  Still, it must be asked if this assumption,
>viz, that *all* problems and all objects of study lend themselves
>to disassembly, is in fact true.  I know of no reason to suppose that it is.

 If you wish to believe in extra sensory perception, horoscopes, reincarnation,
ghosts, etc, that is your prerogative.  I choose not to.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940


