Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!uhccux!lee
From: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Where might CR understanding come from (if it exists)
Message-ID: <3674@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: 6 Apr 89 02:56:34 GMT
References: <820@htsa.uucp>
Organization: University of Hawaii
Lines: 25

From article <820@htsa.uucp>, by fransvo@htsa.uucp (Frans van Otten):
" >no such thing in the world to be found in us or to be put into a machine.
"
" Without getting too philosophical, let me explain that this is partly
" true and partly false.  Humans are conscious.  This is true simply
" because we state it.  But what do we mean by "conscious" ?

I think there is a crucial confusion in what you say here.  The
fact that humans say they are conscious is a fact of human
behavior, worthy of study.  That humans are consious can
alternatively be taken as a theory some of us have about
human behavior, though perhaps not a very well defined one.
Taken as a fact, it's undeniable.  Taken as a theory, if it
can be made specific enough to have empirical consequences,
it can be wrong.  I think it is wrong.  But more importantly,
I think we can't even make sense of these issues, if from the
true fact that humans say they are conscious, we draw the
conclusion that the (or some) corresponding theory must be
correct.  That's not sensible.  The fact is different from
the theory; the theory does not follow from the fact.

" ... The Chinese Room Argument is nonsense. ...

I'm with you on that point.
			Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu