From: ken@iat.holonet.net (Ken Easlon)
Subject: Re: The Easlon Test
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:12:01 GMT


In article <Bz0Hvr.8Mn@iat.holonet.net>, I wrote:

>If there are no comments, criticisms, or other responses to this series of
>bombardments, this will be the final chapter of the thread.

In article <1992Dec15.233126.9591@Csli.Stanford.EDU>,
avrom@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Avrom Faderman) wrote:
 
>In article <Bz0Hvr.8Mn@iat.holonet.net> ken@holonet.net (Ken Ealson)
>wirtes:  

While there is technically a problem with the spelling, I'm going to take
Avrom's response as authorization to back out on my promise to quit.

In this epistle I am going to address the difficulty of talking about
consciousness and reality.

If we built an android that passed the Turing test, as outside observer's
taking the objective viewpoint, we could make statements about the
android's environment with greater precision and "truth" than could the
android itself.  As outside objective observers however, we can't say with
any degree of accuracy whether or not the android is truly conscious.

On the other hand, here I am setting at my computer terminal.  I can say
without fear of contradiction that I am conscious.  Being philosophically
bent however, I can't speak with certainty about the "true existence" of my
environment, because all I can see of "it" is information that I see on my
mental monitor.

Philosophically, I can also see that my objective view of the android's
environment might be part of my reality dream.  Within the confines of the
objective point of view, however, I can make statements generally
recognized as true without having to defend myself.

What I'm gradually working up to here is that we use terms like
consciousness and reality in many different senses, and that the subjective
sense is intrinsically different than the objective sense.

Confusion enters the picture when the subjective me talks about other
people's consciousness, or my own reality.  

Objectively we see ourselves more or less as equals, and can't say that one
of us is truly conscious and the other is faking it.  Likewise, objectively
we can't say that one of us is really living in a material world and the
other is dreaming.

The confusion get's really entrenched when someone like me comes along and
talks about emulating consciousness on a computer, talking about a
subjective phenomenon in an objective world.

Yet, there is a need to bridge subjectivity and objectivity, we try doing
it all the time, and I try doing all the time.

Since I confess to being an uneducated ignoramus, I relinquish all
authority to speak about the expertise of others.  On the other hand, I am
the world's foremost authority on my own consciousness, and feel confident
about pointing out errors others may make in talking about my field of
expertise.

In my philosophical moments, consciousness reigns supreme.  Since
consciousness is a subjective phenomenon, I mean MY consciousness reigns
supreme, but modesty forbids use of the pronoun in that particular context.

From this extreme egocentric perspective, if I die tomorrow, the world
comes to an end.  This kind of statement is bound to get an argument if
directed to others, so within the realm of my subjective consciousness I
create a little subset called objective reality.  This subset is
characterized by statements which I can safely make in a social setting
without being ostracized (or worse).

In the subset of consciousness known as objective reality, some statements
are generally recognized as true, which don't have that ring of truth when
examined from the extreme egocentric perspective.  You say you're
conscious, I doubt that.  You say the world will go on when I die, prove it
(on second thought, not just now).

It's hard to be extremely egocentric when in a state of terror, or even
when being prudently cautious.  In the context of objective reality,
solipsism is relegated to the realm of idle speculation.  

But if I have a moment of safety, and a philosophical urge, I might be
tempted to put objective reality into context.  In this setting, we're
talking metaphysics.  In my mind, the metaphysics of solipsism is just as
valid as the metaphysics of materialism.

The thing that screws up solipsism, or metaphysics, or even philosophy
itself, is that darned wolf at the door.  Any actual construction of a
computer, whether it simulates a fighter cockpit, or emulates another
computer, or emulates the human brain, is going to be carried out in the
world of wolves.

In the world of wolves, emotions and logic have to be balanced. 
Subjectivity and objectivity both have their place.

BOTTOM LINE please, this is going on much too long.

The phrase "consciousness emulation" is a provocation.  In trying to figure
out what it really means, we stretch our philosophical capabilities to
their limit.  In the context of this particular discussion group, the
questions raised by this phrase are within the realm of acceptability, I
think.


--
Ken Easlon                | "...somebody spoke and I went into a dream..."
ken@holonet.net           |    -Paul McCartney
Pleasantly Unaffiliated   |