From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The rise of consciousness
Keywords: brain,evolution,consciousness
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:50:15 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University

I wrote:
>> This involves the Turing test.  If someone comes along and
>>says -- "look, as soon as you construct a machine that will react exactly
>>as you do, consciousness will be an inevitable product of that complex
>>construction, no matter what material you made it out of", 
>>that would be quite a different statement.  That is not my inclination, but
>>seems to be a possibility that you are entertaining (see below).

To which weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) replied:
>It's not so much the possibility that I am entertaining, as it is the one
>you refuse to acknowledge, and by not doing so, get to call Mike Siemon's
>argument "circular".
>He is only arguing in circles if you force *your* assumptions about what
>consciousness is into the argument.

I do not write off any possibility.  But as with evolution itself, it
is the explanatory powers of a theory that are important and that make
one theory more palatable than another.
In my original post (I'll say it again) I made it clear that
I started with the position that consciousness was different than
an automatic algorithm.  If you (or someone else) disagrees with the
assumption, then by all means state your case.  The argument is raging
in other places then t.o.  It turns out that Mike was not circular in
his discussion, as further posts have elaborated.  

>>Then why talk about consciousness?  What differentiates consciousness
>>from a computer program.  [...]  If what you are saying is right,
>>then the term "consciousness" is superfluous and we might as well
>>drop the subject.

>You demonstrate a rather naive view of language.  We use language the
>way do for a variety of reasons--quite rarely for the sake of logical
>hygiene of the sort you're invoking.  Moreover, you fail to distinguish
>some from all.  Only the most rabid AIers make the claim that every last
>program is conscious.

The strength of your argument comes into question here.  It is not my
naive or otherwise view of language that is in question or "logical
hygiene" (please define), it is the explanatory power of the assumption
that consciousness is not a computer algorithm a la Turing and that
therefor it is really a phenomenon not to be equated with an algorithm.
If that is a wrong assumption,
then it would be difficult to explain the calulator problem that I mentioned 
and which you have not adressed.  
All algorithms (parallel or otherwise) can be made
just as well on a calculator (or an abacus).  Why is there no sense
of pain or pleasure with these items while there is with brains?  Why
can we "look outside" an algorithm" to determine that it will
never end?

>>The Chinese room argument of computation would seem to be a strong
>>refutation of that position.

>The Chinese room is a nothing.  *ANYTHING* blown up a million fold and
>scrutinized looks totally ridiculous compared to the original.  So what?

Again I find the argument incoherent.  I also find it a surprising statement
coming from a biologist who must analyze biochemistry and DNA in order
to understand much larger effects.

Why is it ridiculous?  Why is there no
conscious perception in the Chinese room?  It is doing the same thing
as any brain would.  Is it the speed with which it is doing it?  Is
the materials from which it is made?  Why?  Please address the reasons.
Calling an argument "nothing" is not my idea of a counter argument.

Apart from our disagreement about these points, if you allow for the
possibility that consciousness is non-algorithmic, given that assumption
why would you think it is a useful survival tool?  I would be interested
in your insight from a biological point of view.

>-- 
>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
emc@doe.carleton.ca