Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!dewey.soe.berkeley.edu!mkent
From: mkent@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Marty Kent)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Intelligence / Consciousness Test for Machines (Neural-Nets)???
Message-ID: <26422@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 13 Oct 88 18:43:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.26422
References: <1141@usfvax2.EDU> <3430001@hpindda.HP.COM>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mkent@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Marty Kent)
Organization: School of Education, UC-Berkeley
Lines: 31

In article <1141@usfvax2.EDU>, mician@usfvax2.BITNET writes:
> When can a machine be considered a conscious entity?

I think an important point here is exactly the idea that a machine (or
other entity) is generally -considered- to be conscious or not. In other
words, this judgement shouldn't be expected to reflect some deep -truth-
about the entity involved (as if it REALLY is or isn't conscious). It's
more a matter of the -usefulness- of the judgement: what does it buy you
to consider an entity conscious...

So a machine can be considered (by -you-) conscious any time
1) you yourself find it helpful to think this way, and
2) you're not aware of anything that violates this judgement.

If you really want to consider entities conscious, you can come up with a
workable definition of consciousness that'll include most anything (or, at
least,  exclude almost nothing). If you're really resistant to the idea,
you can keep pushing up the requirements until nothing and noone passes
your test. 

Chief Dan George said "The human beings [his own tribe, of course :-)]
think -everything- is alive: earth, grass, trees, stones. The white man
thinks everything is dead. If things keep trying to act alive, the white
man will rub them out."


Marty Kent  	Sixth Sense Research and Development
		415/642 0288	415/548 9129
		MKent@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu
		{uwvax, decvax, inhp4}!ucbvax!mkent%dewey.soe.berkeley.edu
Kent's heuristic: Look for it first where you'd most like to find it.