Stephen, why do you postulate there must be a line? Like intelligence, consciousness could be non-discrete, simply increasing mechanically with the complexity of the organized system. Can't you imagine elaborate robots in the future thinking "I'm conscious; I'm certain of that, by direct experience."?
A line would definitely have to be drawn for the concept of soul (either you have it or not), but not for consciousness I don't think. Michel 2008/11/19 Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Horace Heffner wrote: >> The realm of science is the observable, testable, measurable universe, >> the physical universe. There may be things that exists entirely outside >> of this physical universe, or which can occasionally be part of the >> physical universe, or occasionally affect it. Perhaps higher >> dimensional things, the existence of which here are merely lower >> dimensional projections, shadows so to speak, can on occasion be >> observed. We can not reliably observe or control things while they >> exist entirely outside our dimensions, certainly not if such things have >> free will. It seems to me that to be an open minded scientist it is >> necessary to accept the possibility there are some things which are not >> knowable, which are outside the domain of science and yet which might >> from time to time be part of everyday life. There may exist both >> spiritual and physical realms, with some intersection. >> >> It certainly is true that science applies to almost all experience. By >> definition miracles are not commonplace. Many people can these days go >> through life comfortably thinking everything can be explained by >> science. > > Only if they don't think too far, or they simply deny the validity of > any question which is difficult to frame. (The latter is a common > strategy among hard-headed "realists".) In fact an awful lot of this > issue of "everything is understood" comes right back to the central > question which can't be addressed, or even properly framed, at this > time, in the current state of our knowledge, which is "what is > consciousness?" > > I'm conscious; I'm certain of that, by direct experience. > > Are you, Horace? I would assume so, but I can't prove it, because I > have no test for consciousness, nor even a particularly good definition. > > And as I think I've observed before on this list, the lack of a test can > be demonstrated trivially with a reductio ad absurdum: > > I will assume you are conscious, and you may assume I'm conscious. > > How about a chimpanzee? Is it conscious? Presumably so! > > How about a gorilla? Lots like a chimp, but not quite, eh? > > How about a dolphin? > > How about a sea otter? > > How about a dog? > > How about an octopus (they're highly intelligent, even if highly alien)? > > How about a giant squid? > > How about a mouse? > > How about a turtle? > > How about a snake? > > How about a worm? > > How about a cockroach? > > How about an apid? > > How about a corn plant? > > How about an amoeba? > > How about a rock? > > There's a line there somewhere between things that are conscious and > things that are not, but there's no way to determine with any certainty > *where* to draw it, because the concept of "consciousness" is entirely > outside the ken of modern science. > > I would claim that this is a rather important hole in our current > knowledge base. > >
