Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Sc--nce Attack (self-awareness)
Message-ID: <1667@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Sep-85 23:26:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1667
Posted: Tue Sep 10 23:26:01 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 20:12:22 EDT
References: <45200016@hpfcms.UUCP> <1605@pyuxd.UUCP> <491@spar.UUCP> <1635@pyuxd.UUCP> <1128@ames.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 42

> 	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.
> [KENN BARRY]

Why would I do that?  Can you define the way in which this is a "counterfeit"
and not the "real thing".

> 	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.

Or maybe we are just "simulating it perfectly" ourselves.  Can you define the
difference?

> 	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.

How did you know?

> 	So, how could you *ever* determine, scientifically, whether my
> machine was truly self-aware, or only simulated self-awareness?

Again, aren't you just creating a bogus differential between "simulated"
selfawareness and "real" selfawareness?  What is the difference?
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr