Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!vlsi_lib
From: vlsi_lib@netcom.com (Gerard Malecki)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and consciousness
Message-ID: <vlsi_libCzztB1.BGM@netcom.com>
Organization: VLSI Libraries Incorporated
References: <3b0n0h$ite@news1.shell> <3b11sh$hod@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 19:40:12 GMT
Lines: 60

In article <3b11sh$hod@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> hpm@cs.cmu.edu writes:
>
>>The problem is this:
>>
>>A) Whether a machine is running a certain program is a subjective
>>   judgement.  There is no right or wrong in the matter.  It depends
>>   on how you look at it, how you interpret what is happening.
>>
>>B) A machine running the proper program becomes conscious.  (This is
>>   the strong AI principle.)
>>
>>C) Whether something is conscious or not is not a subjective matter.
>>   We all know from personal experience that there is no room for
>>   doubt about our own consciousness.  This is a question where there
>>   is a right answer and a wrong answer.  Bill Clinton is conscious,
>>   and anyone who denies it is wrong.
>>
>>Now, I believe, to a considerable degree, all three of these statements.
>>Yet they seem to contradict each other.  This poses a dilemma for me.
>>Do other people feel this way?
>>
>>Hal Finney
>>hfinney@shell.portal.com
>
>
>Well stated.
>
>I agree with A and B.
>
>Like Neil, I disagree with C.  Consciousness, like beauty, is a purely
>What makes the issue so interesting and confusing is that, interpreted
>as a consciousness, a mechanism has the means to make interpretations,
>and in those interpretations, interprets ITSELF as a consciousness.
>That circular self-interpretation doesn't go away just because a
>particular external observer, like the alien, chooses a different
>external interpretation.

Exactly. The truth of whether one is conscious or not shouldn't be based
on other's subjective judgement. If you think you are conscious, you are.
That is the beauty of consciousness. It is self referential.

I take the consciousness of other people for granted, primarily
because I am conscious and others are biologically and behaviorally
similar to me. In effect, I based my belief on externally observabye
factors, which is in effect equivalent to the Turing Test. Howevable
this method is not entirely foolproof. There have been instances
where patients under general anasthesia had been aware of conversations
going on in the surgery room.
 
Consciousness falls into the same category as the perception of qualia.
Just as it is impossible for me to determine if someone else is
conscious, so is it for me to determine if the qualia associ is      ,
say, the color red is the same for me and the other person (assuming
he/she is conscious).
 
 
Shankar Ramakrishnan
shankar@vlibs.com


