Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!wdl1.wdl.fac.com!wdl1!mikeb
From: mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Testing for machine consciousness
Message-ID: <MIKEB.90Oct16133635@wdl31.wdl.fac.com>
Date: 16 Oct 90 20:36:35 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> <31@tdatirv.UUCP>
Sender: root@wdl1.wdl.fac.com (SUPER USER)
Organization: Ford Aerospace, Western Development Laboratories
Lines: 17
In-Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP's message of 14 Oct 90 16:04:52 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: wdl31

In article <31@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:

   >>In short, I think the distinction you are making between 'machine' 
   >>and 'human' is largely artificial, it is based on a false 

   >>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.

Likewise, the arguments "proving" the possibility of constructing
consciousness are equally flawed! (By the way -- how can we build something
we can't even define?)

Mike Bender