From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The rise of consciousness
Keywords: brain,evolution,consciousness
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:51:07 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)

In article <emc.715361167@uhura>, emc@doe (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>>That "supposedly" of yours covers a wide yawning gap!  

>I am not sure what you mean.  What I meant was that I assume that if
>I constructed a computer to respond to the evironment in exactly the
>same way as I do, it would not necessarily imply consciousness on the
>part of the machine.

Yes.  "Not necessarily imply consciousness" is your wide yawning gap.

>		  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).

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".

>>You should restrict
>>your disagreement with Mike Siemon on where you disagree regarding the nature
>>of consciousness, and not say that he's merely arguing in circles.  

>But I gave the line of disagreement and pointed to the circular expalantion.
>What could be clearer?  To argue in circles is not a "merely" -- it is a
>serious logical flaw. 

He is only arguing in circles if you force *your* assumptions about what
consciousness is into the argument.

>>If indeed consciousness is nothing but a certain level of mental
>>computation, then he's obviously not in a circle.

>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.

>However, if consciousness is due to the effect of quantum physics,
>non-computable processes and perhaps other physical processes not yet
>understood (see for example the Emporer's New Mind - Penfield) than
>we have an effect that is not to be carried out on my calculator, and
>the explanation given is indeed circular.

Right.  In which case you should restrict your disagreement with Mike
to where you think you disagree regarding consciousness, and not take
his different starting point as evidence of a logical fallacy.

>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?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins