Newsgroups: comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!intac!uunet!in3.uu.net!204.127.130.5!worldnet.att.net!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!nagle
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: ---<Definitions of consiousness>---
Message-ID: <nagleE3q9Lx.M5u@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <32cb5c0e.4115476@news.ping.be> <5anb8f$pi4@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <32d6aa1c.11103216@news.ping.be> <5apdv5$htu@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <E3Ls3D.7u8@nonexistent.com> <5as376$qta@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <E3nM59.9GM@nonexistent.com> <5auhmq$l3q@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 06:20:20 GMT
Lines: 13
Sender: nagle@netcom6.netcom.com

gregs@umich.edu (Greg Stevens) writes:
>rent@gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca (T Hoeppner) wrote:
>>Let's take the flame from a candle.  We can interpret the chemical
>>reactions that result from combustion of the wax and wick as a
>>consciousness.  It detects if it has changed the environment by the amount
>>of heat that is produced and used in further acts of combustion.  So the
>>definition of consciousness is satisfied. 

     I think this is stupid, but I thought it was stupid when I
encountered the question "Does a rock have intensions?" on an AI
exam at Stanford in 1984.

					John Nagle
