Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and consciousness
Message-ID: <D01M1x.IGA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <3b5mj8$76v@mp.cs.niu.edu> <CzzpDK.C6A@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <3bdfmk$m68@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 18:58:44 GMT
Lines: 37

In article <3bdfmk$m68@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In <CzzpDK.C6A@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:

>>are you saying that there aren't any C-objective tests (right now)
>>or that there couldn't be?
>
>I am saying that there could not be a C-objective test with our
>current concept of "consciousness".  There is an objective test, of
>course.  A physician has a way of determining whether a patient is
>conscious.  

Is this objective, rather than C-objective?

>But many people would not consider that to be a test of
>consciousness.
>
>Consider the difficult cases:
>
>	is a monkey conscious?
>	is a dog conscious?
>	is an aphasic person conscious?
>
>By the physician's criterion, all are conscious.  If you ask people,
>however, you will find a considerable diversity of opinion.  This
>diversity is such that most people would not accept the result of any
>objective test.

They would almost all agree with the physician so far as that notion
of consciousness is concerned.

>Perhaps some day the notion of consciousness will be made more
>precise.  When that has happened, perhaps suitable tests will be
>possible.  But they are not possible today.

I agree.

-- jeff
