Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!canon!rjf
From: rjf@canon.co.uk (Robin Faichney)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Testing for machine consciousness
Message-ID: <1990Oct16.084022.7279@canon.co.uk>
Date: 16 Oct 90 08:40:22 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: Robin Faichney <rjf@canon.co.uk>
Reply-To: rjf@canon.co.uk
Organization: Canon Research Europe, Guildford, UK
Lines: 57

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

I'd claim that consciousness cannot be handled objectively.  There can be
no objective evidence for it, or definition of it.

>Actually, I believe that at some basic level 'consciousness' is defined as..

What does this mean?  Whose definition is this?

>"what we humans have that allows us to ask 'who am I'"...

This seems obviously, to me, to be about selfconsciousness, not
consciousness.

>>>[Stanley]
>>>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.

The distinction is in our minds, the argument is in our minds,
consciousness is in our minds -- but you want to put it into a
machine.  You say (I think) that it is merely subjective, therefore the
objections to implementation are similarly subjective.  But I say the
implementations themselves will be equally subjective -- so you can
believe in them if you want to, but (a) you can forget "proof" of any
such implementation, and (b) in no way can this endeavour be described
as "scientific".

The point I am trying to make is that consciousness is neither an
object nor a process -- it is a concept.  When we say something is
conscious what we are really talking about is certain psychological and
sociological aspects of the relationship between it and us.  Primarily,
it means we are willing to identify with it, to put ourselves in its
shoes.

But what is most relevant here is that, if you are interested in
consciousness, you have to look very carefully and seriously at how
this concept is used "in real life".  Adopting some convenient
definition dreamed up either by yourself or by someone similarly
motivated to make it fit your picture just won't do.  Hackers don't
become philosophers or (even social) scientists without a lot of hard
work.  If they knew about it, the notion of a bunch of "computer
scientists" trying to construct a "real person" would make most people,
including those highly qualified in other disciplines, crease up.
(Of course, they laughed at Galileo..  ;-)