From: iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: What is consciousness? (Jan Dockx's mail)
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:31:19 GMT

Following your sugestion I am posting your reply to my previous post.
Jan Dockx writes:
---------Begin-----------

From: dockx@cs.kuleuven.ac.be

Sorry for replying through mail rather than news. Something is refusing
to let me post, it seems. Anyway, if you would like input from the net
on my reply, you can still post it for me.
--------
>I find very hard to argue about the use of consciousness when we don't
>have the least idea of what it is. Defining consciousness as 'self
>awareness' is a somewhat circular definition, and it would indeed,
>as M. Minsky points, imply that we human have very little conciousness,
>and that computers (which can have a full internal description of their
>own function) might be more conscious than we are.

Wait a minute. You don't really get the idea. You are refering to the
viewpoint Sartre explains in the first pages of "L'e^tre et le Ne'ant"
("Being and Nothingness"). His train of thought is not circular, and is
not meant to "explain the use of consciousness" for sure. Asking for
the use of something is the same as asking for the meaning of
something, and according to Sartre asking for the meaning of being
(which is linked to consciousness) is as senseless as asking which way
an apple is facing, or which colour a square circle should have ethically.


Sarte's insight goes like this: 

I'm using the French terms, because there's a catch and I want to get
things clear. In French "being conscious" is "e^tre conscient". The
catch is that, in French, the verb always needs an object. It is always
"e^tre conscient _de_ quelque chose" (Being conscious _of_ something).
So, I can be conscious of a tree, I can be concsious of counting coins.
This is "e^tre conscient _de_ quelque chose" (_d'_ un arbre, _de_
compter de la monnaie). But this is not consciousness. There is more.
Only having a picture of a tree in your brain is not consciousness.
On a higher level, you can be conscious _of_ the fact that you are
conscious _of_ a tree, or _of_ the fact that you are concsious _of_
counting coins. Again there is an object of your being conscious: your
being conscious on a lower level. This view is recursive and can go on
forever. This proves it is not feasible for physical systems in a
limited time (humans) to do. We _are_ thinking, so this is not
thinking. (This is your circular definition, which indeed does not work)

Sarte's genious now, is that he remerked that there is an extra kind of
consciousness, without an object (do some introspection; you'll find
it). When you are consious of a tree, or a counting coins, you are
conscious of that without thinking about it. You are consciously seeing
a tree, consciously counting coins. That is intelligence,
consciousness, the human property. Sartre calls it "conscient _(de)_
soi", placing the "de" between brackets, trying to fool the French language.
In English, or Dutch, we do not have this problem, and can talk about
"self consciousness" or "zelfbewustzijn".
The main idea is, that this is a consciousness without an object. It is
merely the existence of intelligence.

My explanation above is not as good as Sarte's. I'm aware of the fact
that I may not have put my finger right on it. But then, I'm not
Sartre. I suggest that you do read the first 15 pages of "L'e^tre et le
ne'ant" were Sartre brings it to you gently.

Sincerely,
Jan Dockx	<dockx@cs.kuleuven.ac.be>
Leuven
Belgium
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy