Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Testing for machine consciousness
Message-ID: <31@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 14 Oct 90 16:04:52 GMT
References: <3499@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct4.154655.23004@canon.co.uk> <7@tdatirv.UUCP> <1990Oct8.120927.8648@canon.co.uk> <21@tdatirv.UUCP> <1990Oct12.074325.688@canon.co.uk>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 25

In article <1990Oct12.074325.688@canon.co.uk> rjf@canon.co.uk writes:
>
>Can anyone provide a pointer to objective evidence for the existence of
>consciousness?

Not really.  But are you seriously claiming that humans are *not* conscious??

Actually, I believe that at some basic level 'consciousness' is defined as
"what we humans have that allows us to ask 'who am I'".  Thus it exist *by*
*definition*, and it is just a matter of figuring out what that something
really is.

>>[ME]
>>In short, I think the distinction you are making between 'machine' and 'human'
>>is largely artificial, it is based on a false dualism.
>
>The distinction is in our minds..  ;-)

Exactly my point.  Since the distinction is in our minds any argument based
on it is also only in our minds, and nature is not constrained to agree with
us.  Thus the arguments against the possibility of constructing an intelligence
are flawed.
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)