Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!jhess
From: jhess@orion.oac.uci.edu (James Hess)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Testing for machine consciousness (was Re: emergent properties)
Summary: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny (or something like that)
Message-ID: <27239D58.5184@orion.oac.uci.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 90 01:31:04 GMT
References: <1990Sep29.213139.2876@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <3499@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct4.154655.23004@canon.co.uk> <7@tdatirv.UUCP> <1990Oct8.120927.8648@canon.co.uk> <1990Oct11.161350.16127@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: jhess@orion.oac.uci.edu (James Hess)
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Lines: 20

In article <1990Oct11.161350.16127@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> me@csri.toronto.edu (Daniel R. Simon) writes:
>Perhaps some recent experiences of mine will add to the current debates over 
>consciousness and emergence.
>
>For example, during my stay at the LAA, a heated discussion ensued concerning
>the property of beauty, and in particular over whether artificially-rendered
>humans could be considered beautiful.
>
>My only contribution to the debate was to remark once, half in jest, that I
>had always believed beauty to be in the eye of the beholder.  There was an
>awkward silence, a few people coughed embarrassedly, and after a few moments
>the conversation continued as before.  Until I left, those were the last words
>I dared speak on the subject.
>
Lord forbid that these academics should show the initiative to study the 
literature on the meaning of words in semantics and philosophy or the 
philosophy of aesthetics.  It would deprive them of the opportunity to attempt
to single-handedly recreate thousands of years of Western and Eastern 
philosophy.  I can only hope that they had the good sense to conduct this 
session over a pint of bitters.