🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <408@tahoma.UUCP> lrm5110@tahoma.UUCP (Larry R. Masden) writes:
 
>In my opinion there is no theory in current science that explains the 
>emergence of consciousness (self awareness, "I") in complex physical
>systems.  In my opinion there is no scientific definition of what 
>consciousness is.  Sure, there are medical definitions of consciousness
>that serve a useful purpose, but these don't address the issue of
>what consciousness is and how it works.
>
>Say we built a machine with complexity near that of the human mind.  We
>would have no scientific reason to say the machine was conscious even if
>it claimed it was.  We could explain the operation of the complex machine
>in terms of cause effect relationships just as we do for simple machines.
>The complex machine's "claim" of consciousness could be explained 
>mechanically (lengthy explanation) just as the operation of today's
>computers or simple machines can be explained mechanically.  We don't claim
>that the simple machines are conscious.  With no theory to state otherwise,
>we have no reason to claim that the complex ones are.

Nor do we have a scientific reason to say that you and I are
conscious (as I suspect you are saying).  We accept this loose
modifier and go about our business, assuming that people who
act certain ways in the world are conscious.

Adopting this view essentially requires us to drop the use of the
term "conscious" from our active (scientific) vocabulary, which
includes with reference to human beings.  The question then becomes:
What is it about such a complex system (i.e., a computer of sufficient
complexity) that distinguishes its actions and interactions in the
world from "our own"?  *Is* there any reason to distinguish them at
all??