Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!qantel!dual!ames!barry
From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Sc--nce Attack (self-awareness)
Message-ID: <1128@ames.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 20:09:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.1128
Posted: Fri Sep  6 20:09:48 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 05:15:17 EDT
References: <45200016@hpfcms.UUCP> <1605@pyuxd.UUCP> <491@spar.UUCP> <1635@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 49

>>>You speak of recognizing science's limitations.
>>>Does that mean you simply don't use the scientific method of analysis when
>>>it comes to things you perceive to be beyond those limits, in order to
>>>say "thus my ideas are true"?  That's what the wishful thinkers are doing.
>>>What isn't this method suited for, and why?  In what cases do you simply
>>>discard it, and in favor of what?  Do tell us.
>
>>     Case in point: Turing's test for machine consciousness.
>>     How can we determine if an entity actually has conscious awareness?
>>     The only way to REALLY know is to ACTUALLY BE the entity in question.
>>     There is no such thing as `objective scientific evidence' for awareness.
>>     Consequently, if verifiable OBJECTIVE evidence is the only valid
>>     determiner for existence -- I (my conscious awareness) do not exist.
>
>If we can determine what it is withint the organization of our brains that
>gives us conscious awareness (who are you to say that this is impossible?
>isn't that dogmatic???) then we could see if that existed in the machine,
>could we not?  Or would that make it "less beautiful"? [ROSEN]

	I think you missed the catch in the question. In order to equate
conscious awareness to any physical mechanism(s), you'd have to be able
to distinguish between actual self awareness and a perfect counterfeit
of it. Suppose I build a computer which can act *exactly* as though it
is self-aware. Suppose, further, that I give you complete access to the
machine's internals, and complete documentation, plus a staff of experts
to help you understand its operation. You would soon understand quite
well how the machine managed to act as if it were self-aware, and might
even jump to the conclusion that the machine was *not* self-aware, since
you could follow the chain of events from stimulus to response in perfect
detail, and no procedure called "self-awareness" was in the chain anywhere.
	All that would show, though, is that the machine is mechanistic
in its operation, and possesses no "free will". This would still leave
you in ignorance of whether the machine actually had awareness, or only
simulated it perfectly. As you, yourself, have argued elsewhere, human
beings are also without free will, and mechanistic in their operation,
yet they manage to be self-aware even so.
	This is the big catch. As long as "self-awareness" isn't a link
in any causal chains, then self-awareness *by* *definition* produces
no measurable effects, and can't be detected scientifically. For all
I really *know*, I am the only self-aware creature in the universe; all
you other folks are just mindless automatons.
	So, how could you *ever* determine, scientifically, whether my
machine was truly self-aware, or only simulated self-awareness?

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	USENET:		 {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry