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: <1990Oct30.091654.25318@canon.co.uk> Date: 30 Oct 90 09:16:54 GMT References: <3499@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct4.154655.23004@canon.co.uk> Organization: Canon Research Europe, Guildford, UK Lines: 26 In article , oliphant@telepro.UUCP (Mike Oliphant) writes: > In article <1990Oct16.084022.7279@canon.co.uk> rjf@canon.co.uk writes: > > >I'd claim that consciousness cannot be handled objectively. There can be > >no objective evidence for it, or definition of it. > > I would argue that the key issue is not to classify things as being subjective > or objective, but rather to try to understand why the subjective exists at > all and to try to figure out just what the heck it is. To me, the > problematic aspect of consciousness is that it is so inextricably linked to > having a "point of view". I want to know why I have such a "point of view" > and where it comes from. Telling me that it is subjective and I cannot > objectively investigate it doesn't help any. This is the traditional cop-out > of labelling something that you do not understand and then proclaiming the > issue to either be resolved or unresolvable. It's no cop out. It only looks that way because it lacks an explanation of the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity. I can put the relevant part of such a explanation in a few words: consciousness is the essence of subjectivity. They are practically the same thing. It is the particular point of view which we possess as individual organisms. But if you want a *real* explanation I suggest you check out the last 2 chapters of Thomas Nagel's book 'Mortal Questions'. It even touches on the existential question 'why am *I* here, now, possessed of this particular point of view'. And without getting mystical. Highly recommended.