X-Message-Number: 8139 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:15:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Olaf Henny <> Subject: CRYONICS Message #8133 from: Charles Platt; Consciousness Re: Message #8133 from: Charles Platt Subject: CRYONICS Consciousness > >On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, John K. Clark asked: > >> I've asked this question before but never got an answer, Do you think I'm >> conscious? > >Hey, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I asked, weeks ago: >Does my cat have a self-circuit? While we are all pouting, let me get in my gripe too, that I did not receive an applause for my assertion, that that ant, which I successfully chased down a few weeks ago had a consciousness, ;-) Here are some of my thoughts to consciousness: - In order be conscious an entity must have a minimal data processing capacity. - Entity includes human, animal, plant and construct including sophisticated robots and simple hand calculators. - I reject the idea, that a thermostat has a consciousness, just like I reject the idea, that a brick, which drops, when I let go of it has a consciousness, not because I can prove that these items don't have one, but simply for the purpose of limiting the parameters of this discussion. Otherwise it could be expanded to include the clay and the sand in the brick and right down to a single atom. I remember, that somebody in this forum theorized earlier, that an atom does not have a consciousness (,but that consciousness evolved at some stage on the way of atoms being assembled to a human being). Since I did not see any objections, I assume that we can agree on that. - I would accordingly submit, that our discussion, to be limited to entities, which are capable of accepting and *actively* reacting to data (A thermostat *is* a datum. I.e., if the little metal rod expands (contracts) to a certain point, a switch is thrown. No other information, no matter how limited can be stored in it). That means that the entity must have for the purpose of this discussion at least a neuron or two or otherwise the means to receive and *actively* react (to) outside information. A brick would *passively* react to sun shining on it by getting warm. A plant would *actively* react to sunshine, by turning its leaves into a position, where it would receive either more or less of it, to satisfy its requirements. Do plants have a consciousness? Many of us think they do. In my opinion one of the most basic measures of self- consciousness is an *inherent* desire for self-preservation. I therefore submit: If an entity is not conscious of a *self*, it will not have the impetus necessary to protect that *self*. To get back to cryonet Message 8133, my legendary ant, which took evasive action, when I tried to catch it, Charles Platt's cat, which I trust will head for a tree, when chased by a Pitt Bull and even John C. Clark, providing he tries to get out of the way when a truck without brakes bears down on him [;)] can all be presumed to be conscious of a danger to their *self* and must accordingly be conscious of their self, i.e., possess consciousness. >How can I be sure that the ape is not just pretending to be >conscious? And how can I be sure that the ape is not a robot cunningly >built from materials identical to those used in a real ape? How do I know >that I'm not such a robot? How do I know that Robert Ettinger is not such >a robot? In the context of my above assertions it does not matter if Robert Ettinger is a robot. If he [it ;)] has any desire for self-preservation (and from his postings I conclude, that he has), then he has a consciousness. Period. I submit there is no possible way to answer any of these questions, which makes this debate a REALLY big waste of time. I disagree. If you accept the above parameters, that self- preservation is a function of self-consciousness, then it is simple to prove it. It is more difficult to disprove it. I would opine, that a rocket or robot, which is programmed by an outside intelligence to take evasive action under certain conditions does not necessarily have a consciousness. Nobody had programmed my ant to take evasive action if a hand approaches. It likely had never seen a hand before. It merely sensed (-was *conscious* of) 'threat' and scooted. That proves consciousness by my criteria. My computer, although, I assume, with a much greater capacity for data processing than my ant, has not shown any to me recognizable urge for self-preservation (that will come in handy, when I want to junk it). Neither have I heard of any indications of *inherent* (not programmed into it by an outside intelligence) desire for self-preservation in any other construct with digital data processing capability. Therefore I do not know at this time if digital "intelligence" has the capability of consciousness Olaf Henny Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8139