sas@BFLY-VAX.BBN.COM.UUCP (01/29/87)
I always thought that a scientific theory had to undergo a number of tests to determine how "good" it is. Needless to say, a perfect score on one test may be balanced by a mediocre score on another test. Some useful tests are: - Does the theory account for the data? - Is the theory simple? Are there unnecessary superfluousities? - Is the theory useful? Does it provide the basis for a fruitful program of research? There are theories of the mind which include consciousness and those arguing that it is secondary - a side effect of thought. It seems quite probable that the bulk of artificial intelligence work (machine reasoning, qualitative physics, theorem proving ... ) can be performed without considering this thorny issue. While I frequently accuse my computers of malice, I doubt they are consciously malicious when they flake out on me. While the study of consciousness is fascinating and lies at the base of numerous religions, it doesn't seem to be scientifically useful. Do I rewrite my code because the machine is conscious or because it is getting the wrong answer? Is there a program of experimentation suggested by the search for consciousness? (Don't confuse this with using conscious introspection to build unconscious intelligence as I would to guide a toy tank from my office to the men's room). Does consciousness change the way artificial intelligence must be programmed? The evidence so far says NO. [How is that for a baldfaced assertion? Send me your code with comments showing how consciousness is taken into account and I'll see if I can rewrite it without consciousness]. I don't think scientific theories of consciousness are incorrect, I think they are barren. Seth P.S. For an excellent example of a nifty but otherwise barren theory read the essay Adam's Navel in Stephen Gould's book the Flamingo's Smile.