[MD] Heads or tails?

[Hamilton Priday]

Platt, Case --

[Platt quoting from "Introducing Consciousness" by
David Papineau and Howard Selina, Icon Books]:

> "Consciousness is widely viewed as the last frontier of science.
> Modern science may have split the atom and solved the mystery
> of life, but it has yet to explain the source of conscious feelings."

Actually, I found the authors' analysis quite illuminating.  Not only is it 
in simple English (for Case), it effectively refutes the notion of inanimate 
(objective) consciousness:


"The reason for starting with examples rather than definitions is that no 
objective, scientific explanation seems able to capture the essence of 
consciousness.

"For example, suppose we try to define consciousness in terms of some 
characteristic psychological role that all conscious states play - in 
influencing decisions, perhaps, or in conveying information about our 
surroundings.

"Or we might try to pick out conscious states directly in physical terms, as 
involving the presence of certain kinds of chemicals in the brain, say.

"Any such attempted objective definition seems to leave out the essential 
ingredient. Such definitions fail to explain why conscious states feel a 
certain way.

"Couldn't we in principle build a robot which satisfied any such scientific 
definition, but which had no real feelings?

"Imaging a computer-brained robot whose internal states register 
"information" about the world and influence the robot's 'decisions'. Such 
design specifications alone don't seem to guarantee that the robot will have 
any real feelings.

"The lights may be on, but is anyone at home? ..."


Thanks for suggesting this link, Platt.  I may even be persuaded to read 
"Introducing Consciousness".
Do you have any background on the authors?  Are they qualified to speak for 
Science?

Regards,
Ham