From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!decwrl!atha!aupair.cs.athabascau.ca!burt Mon Nov  9 09:36:24 EST 1992
Article 7477 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!decwrl!atha!aupair.cs.athabascau.ca!burt
>From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: definition of consciousness
Message-ID: <burt.720637983@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
Date: 1 Nov 92 17:13:03 GMT
References: <tim.720580709@giaeb>
Sender: news@cs.athabascau.ca
Lines: 30

tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (Tim Roberts) writes:


>Consciousness is to the study of the brain what phlogiston is to the study of
>combustion.


Sorry pal, you flunk the Turing test.

Without consciousness there would be no study of brains, combustion,
or anything else.

For an alternate viewpoint we could begin with a fragment from
Parmenides, usually translated as "...it is the same, thinking
and being..."  I have it on good authority, however, that a better
translation would read "...it is the same to be conscious and to
exist..."
One could, of course, dismiss this as the ranting of some old Greek
who didn't really understand all the complexities involved (poor
fellow, he did his best, but didn't have all of our accumulated
wisdom and knowledge, so what have we to learn from him...); or
one could show some respect and consider basing a definition of
consciousness on what Parmenides called "what is".  Translated into
modern language this would say that consciousness is beyond all
possible distinctions.  Taking this as basic one can then develop
a top down analysis which is complimentary to the usual bottom up
theorizing which we see.  To me this seems a far more fruitful
line of work, leading to a theory in which consciousness is a basic
rather than a derived element.
bv


