🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct15.023141.7989@wixer.cactus.org> sparky@wixer.cactus.org (Timothy Sheridan) writes:
>
>aww heck, a guys gota have some claim to fame..
>
>I propose that a test for consciousness exists wherein the entity or system
>is capable of demonstrating that it is intelegent enough so as to makt it
>impossible to fool it in to thinking it is not conscious.
>
>
>Tim.



      A computer program which simply kept reiterating that it was 
conscious would do the trick here. :-) The point being that anyone who
was foolish enough to grant that a machine was conscious because it could
fool a suitably "blinded" person into thinking it was conscious would
himself have to be a moron. Of course, no cautious academic would ever
be such a moron. They would have to first change the meaning of consciousness
until nobody knew what the devil they were talking about, _then_ they
could safely say it. Then all the people who said "Oh, dear" would buy
his book, in which he would explain in minute detail the true meaning
of the term "consciousness" and say next to nothing about computers!

      John E. Snodgrass [snodgras@cyber.net]