Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!cca!milla
From: milla@cca.UUCP (Michael J. Massimilla)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: the Halting problem.
Message-ID: <5837@cca.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Oct-83 16:54:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: cca.5837
Posted: Thu Oct  6 16:54:56 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Oct-83 05:39:54 EDT
References: eisx.607
Lines: 24


     Your "infinite regress"  dilemma  is  resolved  when  we  view  the
situation  practically instead of theoretically.  Practically, a machine
that is complex ENOUGH will appear to be conscious.  It does not have to
be  able  to  manage  infinite  levels  of  thought.  In fact, the whole
question is a matter of degree.  Humans are "more  conscious"  than  the
lower  primates  because  humans  have  a  greater  capacity for complex
thought.  But even humans are limited.  Certainly it is not  beyond  the
realm of possibility for a machine to be sufficiently complex that it is
"more conscious" than man.

     The key point is that consciousness is NOT the  ability  to  manage
infinite  levels of model/reality.  Rather, it is an ILLUSION associated
with being able to perform highly complex  thought.   That  illusion  is
enhanced  by  randomness, lack of full information, and the complexities
of the external universe.   Self-awareness  is  another  aspect  of  the
illusion.

     As for the theoretical characteristic "X" which you describe -- the
absoulte ability to understand infinite levels of thought -- it  has  no
practical existence or significance whatsoever.

					Michael Massimilla
					cca!milla