Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!canon!rjf From: rjf@canon.co.uk (Robin Faichney) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Definition of (was Re: Testing for []) consciousness Message-ID: <1990Oct22.150143.13858@canon.co.uk> Date: 22 Oct 90 15:01:43 GMT References: <27608@usc.edu> Sender: Robin Faichney Reply-To: rjf@canon.co.uk Organization: Canon Research Europe, Guildford, UK Lines: 47 In article mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) writes: [..] >I agree whole-heartedly -- either we can come up with a useful definition >of consciousness, or else we should stop arguing whether machines can or >can't have "it". > >However, that does not mean that we should ignore the subject. I think it >would be very useful to come up with a meaningful definition of >consciousness (or at least human consciousness) because (1) It believe it >plays a critical part in our intelligence and (2) By understanding it, we >may improve our understanding of how computers can be used effectively. > >Mike Bender Assuming we are overloading consciousness to mean also the capacity for it, which is more correctly termed sentience: I'd like to suggest that something be ascribed consciousness iff it can be the subject of experience: iff it is like something to be that thing. (This is lifted from T Nagel, actual references not to hand but available on request.) If you think it is like something to be a bat, that the bat experiences anything, then you think the bat conscious; if not, then not. If you think it is like something to be a house brick, that the brick experiences anything, then you think the brick conscious. If you think it like something to be a PC, then you think the PC conscious. ..Cray..Connection Machine..super_duper_heterogenous_3000AD_NN.. You get the drift. This is (supposed to be) an account of the ordinary concept of consciousness, which is why I think it the one for AI. Even though it is entirely subjective. That's just AI's tough luck! ;-) (Or good luck?) Formulating a more objective definition is just trying to move the goal posts. Actually, I think some AI people are resistant to this definition not because it upsets their professional picture, but because it upsets their personal picture -- as it does those of most of us. It is so radical that it takes a long time to sink in. (You mean there really is something which is *completely* subjective??) Though perhaps longer for some than for others! ;-)