Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tdatirv!sarima From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Testing for machine consciousness Message-ID: <32@tdatirv.UUCP> Date: 19 Oct 90 17:54:31 GMT References: <7@tdatirv.UUCP> <1990Oct8.120927.8648@canon.co.uk> <21@tdatirv.UUCP> <1990Oct12.074325.688@canon.co.uk> <31@tdatirv.UUCP> Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine Lines: 18 In article mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) writes: >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?) I am not sure how you get this from my position. I suspect we may not be talking on the same wavelength. The distinction that I was claiming to be entirely 'imaginary' was the distinction between machine(=artificial) and human(=natural). That is any argument based on the two being intrinsicly different is suspect. And since there is no intrinsic difference, the existance of one implies the possibility of the other. Besides, I tend to assume something is possible until it is proven otherwise. Too many things claimed impossible have been done for me to place much store in 'impossibility'. -- --------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)