DAVIS@EMBL.BITNET (01/08/87)
from: princeton!mind!harnad@seismo.CSS.GOV
subject: response to Minsky on Mind(s).
> The real burden is to show why ANY [mental processes]
> of them are concious.
I'm not convinced that this is quite the case. The problem, if one exists
in the area of research/design strategy, is to show HOW any of them are
concious. There is almost no doubt that toothache could be dealt with by
an automaton - the fact that that it appears in at least one case (author
listed above] to be conciously experienced must surely provoke both
questions. However, the question of why conciousness has emerged is surely
in the area of evolutionary biology (and to be sure workers like Armstrong
have made some very interesting suggestions as to the reasons for concious-
ness emerging). In the domain of AI, the only question that makes sense
about conciousness is the most fundamental of all - how is it possible
to know (aka:be aware of, be concious of) ANYTHING at all ?
But in the meantime, I would re - echo the final sentiments expressed: just
get on with building superb, rich and complicated machines - leave the
installation of the 'conciousness chip' to good luck.....
.....paul