On 8/18/2011 8:12 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
I'm not saying we shouldn't do science, just that we can't be *sure*
that something which behaves as if it's conscious is actually
conscious. A thermostat may have a primitive consciousness or it
might not; I don't know.
I do not get your point. For example please develop a theory that will
ascribe a thermostat a primitive consciousness.
I was talking about scientific experiments described in the book of Jeffrey
Gray. I agree that each experiment is based on assumption. Yet, if we talk
about science, the please make a scientific critique of these experiments.
Then it would be easier to follow you.
It's simply a fact that we can't deduce consciousness from behaviour.
We can do experiments on consciousness assuming that when people say
"I experience this" they are telling the truth, but the essentially
private nature of consciousness means that it can't be proved. The
thermostat is a good example: if I hypothesise that it is conscious, I
can do experiments where it is observed to push the temperature up and
I claim "the thermostat feels cold". Can you think of any experiment
that will help me decide if the thermostat does or does not feel cold?
If you can, then you have a scientific test for consciousness. we can
apply it to computers, animals, thermostats and any alien beings we
According to Bruno we can look at how it works and conclude it's not a
universal computer and it's certainly not Lobian, so we conclude it's
not conscious. This accords with the common intuition that something
conscious has to be pretty complex and have memory at a minimum. I know
a guy who studies neuroscience and cognition who won't eat anything with
a cerebral cortex.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at