Why would we have a word that intuitively everybody can grasp for himself 
without it being linked to a "real" phenomena ?

Not only we have one word, but we have plenty of words which try to grasp the 
idea. Denying consciousness phenomena like this is playing a vocabulary 
game... not denying the subject of the word.


On Sunday 03 June 2007 21:52:17 Hal Finney wrote:
> Part of what I wanted to get at in my thought experiment is the
> bafflement and confusion an AI should feel when exposed to human ideas
> about consciousness.  Various people here have proffered their own
> ideas, and we might assume that the AI would read these suggestions,
> along with many other ideas that contradict the ones offered here.
> It seems hard to escape the conclusion that the only logical response
> is for the AI to figuratively throw up its hands and say that it is
> impossible to know if it is conscious, because even humans cannot agree
> on what consciousness is.
> In particular I don't think an AI could be expected to claim that it
> knows that it is conscious, that consciousness is a deep and intrinsic
> part of itself, that whatever else it might be mistaken about it could
> not be mistaken about being conscious.  I don't see any logical way it
> could reach this conclusion by studying the corpus of writings on the
> topic.  If anyone disagrees, I'd like to hear how it could happen.
> And the corollary to this is that perhaps humans also cannot legitimately
> make such claims, since logically their position is not so different
> from that of the AI.  In that case the seemingly axiomatic question of
> whether we are conscious may after all be something that we could be
> mistaken about.
> Hal

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to