Talk:Artificial consciousness/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Semantics

Much of this is just semantics.

• We switch between different definitions of "conscious". When a doctor says "conscious" in the context of your example he is not considering the philosophical issues. He is like the mechanic talking about the engine of a car: He uses the word "conscious" like the mechanic uses the term "running". And there are different meanings of "running", too. The SOED merely acknowledges the doctor's use of the term conscious in one of its definitions.

• • Doctor: "The patient is now conscious."
  • Skeptic: "So you say, but is he self-aware?"
  • Patient: "I am hungry."

• • MSCE: "The computer is now running."
  • Skeptic: "So you say, but is it self-aware?"
  • Computer: "Battery low."

• The thermostat has its one feedback loop and, stuck on that loop, it deliberates. And if it doesn't, if that is a term we must reserve for humans, another term is required. But nothing is said about AC thereby. All that is demonstrated is the need to reserve the term.

Someone is on a mountainside and does not notice rocks being piled around him. When he shifts in position and "causes" an avalanche, that is not something which he consciously did. The expanding rock in your example and the moving person in mine are in the same position here. Not the thermostat and the rock. In your example the thermostat cannot be conscious because the rock isn't, in my example the person cannot be conscious because the rock isn't. But awake? Yes.

Two points are made by re-stating your example. (1) Awake and conscious are not the same thing. (2) The question is pre-judged if the non-aliveness, non-humanness and simplicity of both the rock and the thermostat is used to say that each is not conscious because one of them isn't and they are similar in other respects. All that has happened is you have stated your belief that consciousness is a preserve of more complicated things: The thing you set out to prove.

As for the "driving a car" example surely you have had the same experience yourself: On arriving somewhere the journey is not one you can say you consciously undertook. "Well, I must have been awake." That is the doctor's definition. What about your internal watcher, what was he doing?

Paul Beardsell 13:33, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My internal watcher, that quintessential aspect of my consciousness, would have been watching something all the time during my drive. The fact that my attention, i.e. that which my internal watcher watches, was not focused on my driving, which I had allowed to happen through habitually learned processes, is neither here nor there. I am all the time unaware of that which I am not being attentive to - that doesn't mean that I'm unconscious. Obviously I'm unconscious of, i.e. unaware of the things to which I'm not being attentive, but that does not affect whether or not I'm a conscious entity. I don't think you can apply the same argument to a rock or a thermostat. The question is whether you can conceive a machine to which that argument does apply. Matt Stan 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• • Doctor: "The patient is now conscious."
  • Skeptic: "So you say, but is he self-aware?"
  • Doctor (to patient): "Are you conscious?"
  • Patient: "I think so, though maybe not fully. (What was in that syringe? It blew my mind!) Therefore I am."

• • MSCE: "The computer is now running."
  • Skeptic: "So you say, but is it self-aware?"
  • MSCE (via input device, to computer):"Are you conscious?"
  • Computer: "Buffer overflow vulnerability detected. Shutting down."
  • MSCE (to skeptic): "It might have been, but it isn't now."

How do you distinguish between self-awareness and wakefulness? Are they not synonymous? The only distinction I can see, which is a minor one, is that in order to demonstrate self-awareness one has to divert one's attention from whatever one was being attentive to in order explicitly to demonstate one's self-awareness. That is why I don't agree that self-awareness is actually one of the defining characteristics of consciousness, whereas attentiveness is. One can be conscious without being self-aware, as when, for instance, one is engrossed in something other than considering whether one is self-aware and concluding that one is by virtue of having considered it. Matt Stan 19:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please leave draft articles in the talk namespace

See /NPOV Version and /NPOV Version/discuss. --Jiang 06:14, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is AC equivalent to consciousness or not

I consider it necessary to answer here a question asked in the beginning of the dispute over "artificial consciousness" article, because due to the dispute my answer may remain unclear.

"To say Artificial Consciousness is not Consciousness is simply to define Consciousness as being something human beings cannot build. If "it", whatever "it" is, is built by humans, then by definition it would not be conscious." (Paul Beardsell)

Yes, I said that artificial consciousness is not consciousness and I insist it, considering that we determine consciousness as the totality of a person's thoughts and feelings. This is the most general description of consciousness, the more narrow definitions supposed to be used in specific context, but it may again be understood differently by different people. That way we determine consciousness through human abilities, to be a totality of human abilities. And this may remain so, as we measure consciousness through our own abilities. As consciousness is subjective (Searle etc, feelings), then we can never determine if there is an equivalent to it. So if there is something similar to human consciousness in other than human, then we should call it with some other name, not just consciousness. But there will always be many subjective abilities or aspects like certain feelings etc even because there will always be new conditions to what different people react differently and therefore understand related ideas or experiences differently, what means that these ideas or experiences will be subjective. And we cannot build a machine to fully satisfy subjective concepts, at least just because people can never determine whether such machine finally does what it supposed to do or not. Therefore machine is something made by humans based on what they objectively know, not even anything what theoretically can be emulated by algorithm. So yes, by that if a machine is built by humans, then by definition it cannot be conscious. I don't know any AC effort to build a machine equivalent to human, so it is not commonly considered that AC must be equivalent to consciousness. But in spite I don't agree with that, I was not against including opposite point of view into the article. Tkorrovi 20 Mar 2004

So is the human being only a machine or is it something more than a machine? Paul Beardsell 11:32, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Paul, this is a very interesting philosophical problem, and this article may be worth to be in Wikipadia even only because of mentioning this problem. It has its origins in writings of Dennett probably. The main problem there is what is a machine. If we consider that machine is anything what satisfies Church-Turing thesis, then the logic is correct. But the question is, are humans capable of making all possible machines what satisfy Church-Turing thesis? If by any reason they cannot, then the difference between human and machine is simply what we don't know yet or cannot objectively model because it is subjective (what different people understand differently), what may be rational and satisfy Church-Turing thesis (at least maybe when applied to everything), not necessarily soul or "magic spark". And in spite that we learn more all the time, there still remain things what we don't know, even just because people are constantly changing and interdependent on their environment and each other. So the dilemma remains and none of the views are proved wrong. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

By Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation consistent with the facts is likely to be the correct one, and the Copernican principle, that no special or priveleged position should unnecessarily be given to any part of the problem, Artificial Consciousness will be real consciousness. The Church Turing thesis says we need new physics before two computing machines are different, by Occam's Razor we should not posit new physics without good reason. By the Copernican principle we should claim no special position for human beings without good reason. The only good reasons we have are arrogant ones: Humans are too complicated, too special, too something for their brains to be built or copied artificially. Surely, here you are correct: we have lots to learn, we learn more all the time, many things are possible, each POV must be in the article. But where you are wrong, if you hold this view, is that each POV has equal merit. No, the approach consistent with the scientific method says: Artificial consciousness is likely to be real consciousness, by Occam's Razor and the Copernican principle. And that will remain the most likely true POV until contradictory evidence is discovered. Paul Beardsell 16:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Occam's Razor did fight against catholicism with this argument. The problem here is that the concept that artificial consciousness is equivalent to consciousness is also not the simplest solution, we don't know everything about consciousness and so making artificial consciousness in that way would be not only much more complicated, but unfeasible task. So concerning these two, the second is much simpler approach to build AC, and so also maybe the only meaningful approach for AC in general. OK at least, none of the views are proved wrong by this argument either. And it's simpler for us to just write what different views there can be. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Copernicus had to keep his head down when it came to the Church too. The Catholic Church's POV is, of course, that there is a magic spark. Paul Beardsell 17:21, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree that "The approach consistent with the scientific method says: Artificial consciousness is likely to be real consciousness", there is not only one approach in scientific method also. What then about Chalmers, accordance to who a simple awareness, like that of thermostat, can considered to be artificial consciousness? Why not just leave the different approaches in the article, without charging how "equal" they are. (BTW I don't agree with Chalmers version or so-called "Weak AC" either.) I think there is no "magic spark", just the things we don't know yet, whatever they are then. And your example of Copernicus reminded me some other example, what if Galileo did say that the Earth orbits around the Sun and Sun orbits around the Earth are both true, instead of insisting that only the first case is true? He might still been right because in accordance with general relativity we can look at the things from any point and the equations still describe the things correctly. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

There is only one scientific method. Two scientists can take two different approaches to solving the same problem, and each approach can be consistent with the scientific method. It is a methodology, not a recipe.

Occam's Razor does not say there is only one correct way of explaining something, it says do not bother with the more complicated way when the simpler way accords with all the known facts. Of course, we now know that Galileo was wrong: The earth and the sun revolve around their common centre of gravity. That is the Einsteinian view also. Special relativity allows you any location and any linear velocity, but angular velocities (being acceleration) are NOT relative.

Paul Beardsell 18:04, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, and it's not completely proved what is the simpler way for AC either. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Well, if strong AC is shown to be impossible that will mean new physics (Penrose), or the existence of the magic spark (Catholic Church), or at least the Church Turing thesis to be shown wrong (OK, here you have a fighting chance but don't bet on it). The simpler way has to be no new science or religious revelation. Well, that is what Mr Occam says. Paul Beardsell 18:26, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think nothing is so dramatic, if strong AC is shown to be impossible then there are just thing what we yet don't know, not even necessarily very different from what we know. But why bother with finding out whether strong AC is correct or not, just include it together with other views. But this is interesting philosophical problem, and most of them are not solved, some are even kind of "eternal". Penrose said consciousness is non-computable, so in accordance to him there couldn't be no AC and almost no AI either. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Penrose proposes a what physicists consider a REVOLUTION in physics to support his view. Penrose is a mathematician, not a physicist. The position is every bit as dramatic as I state. I agree, MAYBE strong AC is impossible but IF SO either (i) there will be new physics, (ii) or there will be metaphysical/religious revelation or (iii) Church-Turing thesis is wrong. This is NOT a matter of opinion, but of fact. We do not know about strong AC (as it does not yet verifiably exist) but if it is SHOWN TO BE IMPOSSIBLE one of the three alternatives is required. Or (4) Possibly this might be one of those problems to which we will never know the truth or (5) possibly consciousness does not exist at all, not even in humans, we are unconsciously deluded. Paul Beardsell 19:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but doesn't the argument of Penrose that consciousness is non-computable already say that strong AC is impossible? I don't agree with that argument and I also don't see a need for anything non-computable (whether then soul or whatever else). But this is again a matter of views, some scientists agree with Penrose, some don't, but in the article about the matter all views must be included. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Background on Penrose: Most (practically all) scientists do not agree with Penrose, he is widely regarded as a crank in this field. He posits that human consciousness depends on quantum processes in microtubules in the neurons of the brain! Other scientists correctly ask: What is your evidence for that? Penrose ultimately has to resort to the circular argument that something special is required for consciousness. Paul Beardsell 08:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV: Wikipedia rules do not say that all views must be included. We can fairly leave the more cranky ones out. But, I agree, Penrose's views must be included. But it is neutral to expose his views to the fair criticism of others. And, before you complain, I think you are saying nothing different. Paul Beardsell 08:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And then, wouldn't it be better to concentrate from tremendous philosopical and scientific problems on how to write the article, just include all the views there are and that's it. I'm by far not against discussing, but we may not go much forward that way. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Yes, but you started this section of this page to address the question "Is AC equivalent to consciousness or not?" I am simply staying on topic. It seems to me that you must have a view: Is the human being a machine or not? According to tkorrovi, what is correct? If you say yes, OK, we are just machines, then I ask what is special about the type of machine that we are that other machines cannot be properly conscious. If you say no, obviously we are more than machines, then you are saying that true consciousness depends on some magic spark or, if you prefer, it is a gift of God. And that would explain your belief that AC can not be true consciousness. If you are undecided then I suggest that your belief might be prematurely held. Paul Beardsell 09:33, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What I personally think is that human is not machine, but Church-Turing thesis apply, if not to a single human (because human is dependent on everything else), then at least to everything as a whole. The question is about "strong AC" view I don't agree with but as there is such view, then we may discuss it. "Is AC equivalent to consciousness" is a question asked in accordance with that view. The answer to this question depends on what we assume, what we consider to be AC (and therefore "machine") and what we consider to be consciousness. Essentially, it seems to me that "strong AC" view comes from the assumption that AC is meant to be an exact copy of human consciousness and it concludes that it must be so, because Church-Turing thesis must apply to AC and by assumption that AC is equivalent to consciousness, they must also apply to consciousness. So in essence this view assumes that human is a machine, and so it cannot conclude otherwise. And this doesn't exclude other views based on other assumptions. And not only assumptions, it was said that the only exact model of the universe is the universe itself, the same way we cannot exactly model such subjective and dependent entity as human consciousness, and AC cannot be equivalent to consciousness. But OK, we may discuss, but what I said was that we cannot assume that we here solve all the problems in the world, so we may discuss but not take the task to solve everything. It remains so that there are different views, not proved to be wrong, and it's not for us to judge what books should be burned. Tkorrovi 14:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Case to exclude 'thought' from definition of consciousness

I do not believe the definition of consciousness is yet right. No one has discussed how artificial consciousness is to embody thought. Artificial thought? Has anyone thought about this? Matt Stan 11:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is why the requirement to embody only what we objectively know, otherwise artificial consciousness would be nonsense indeed. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Sorry Matt but we don't know a lot about thought, and by the definition (rather description) AC is required to be capable to achieve only of what we know, not exactly "be capable of thought". Or didn't I understand something? Would it not be enough to say that there are other definitions of consciousness in different dictionaries? (In fact yes, very different, but in almost every dictionary there is one possible interpretation of consciousness to be more or less a totality of person's thoughts, and often also other abilities). Would it not be right to include other alternatives to other alternative definition? Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

I changed it by now to essentially say that by first definition some views would require AC to be capable of thought (what is impossible requirement). Don't know how good the result is, change it if you like. But better add comments to the views, not in separate item, or maybe as subparagraph under certain view. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Perhaps general thought is the preserve of (artificial) intelligence: Proving a theorem does not require consciousness (I suggest). Whereas reflexive thought, that which humans, dogs and thermostats do all the time, is a preserve of (artificial) consciousness.

• Humans: "I think therefore I am."
• Dogs: "Why am I here again?"
• Thermostats: "I'm hot."

Paul Beardsell 14:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's good that you noticed that not everything requires consciousness. Therefore my opinion is that consciousness is a totality of all the abilities, only all mental abilities of an average human together give something what we call consciousness (and feel like consciousness). Except some special cases in restricted context (patient is considered conscious when he blinks his eye). Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Preparing for a merger

At the village pump tkorrovi asked what I thought about this version. And I replied I would comment here.

I think that a lot of work has gone into it and in some important ways it is better than the main article. I also think that the main article is better than this one in some important ways.

I can spot some obvious minor flaws (e.g. grammar, wording) here. I also can spot one or two larger mistakes made when tkorrovi made what is an obviously honest and well-meaning attempt to incorporate views that he himself does not hold. Experience tells me that correcting these errors here might be problematic.

I want to incorporate some of the main article's talk page into the article itself. Then the two pages need merging.

Paul Beardsell 14:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK then, thank you, prepare it here before merging. Sure it needs work. I have some hope that we may agree. Not so many people interested in this article anyway, so when we the only ones who talk about it don't agree, this would be highly unreasonable -- we would create weakness where there could be strength. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

I think a merger needs to be done quickly and might not be perfect. If it is not done quickly then for a time we still have multiple versions which then allows for further differences to occur. I think we must allow for temporary reductions of quality and even loss of some content. Sometimes going forward must allow for the occasional backward step. We will soon recover from any mistakes made. What I think you are suggesting is that there must be a consensus to have a new version, that you would still like a veto. Paul Beardsell 16:17, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes it's better to reach consensus in discussion, at least in the most important thing -- how to organise the article. I suggest the same way as in NPOV version with the comment in the beginning, that views must be separated, included. Because it's clear that there are different views what remain opposite, like the "strong AC" and "weaker" AC schools of thought. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

And instead of merging (or as a way of merging) I suggest adding everything what is considered to be missing into this version, and then just replace the main article with this version. I think it would be much easier to do it that way. What you think? Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

---

If you bring everything accross to this page and delete the current version, renaming this, the edit history will be lost. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is not my preference. A way around this is not to rename but copy'n'paste back onto Artificial consciousness from here.

Can I also suggest, if you are going to take this huge task on, that you bring over everything to here, word for word, without editing, and only edit when you get here. Then the change log of the merge exercise will all be in one place.

I think once it all is one place that possibly some of the merging work can be shared, if we are careful, but if you would prefer to have a go at it first that's fine by me, as long as we can tell from the log what has happened, and so I can revert you no more than three times. (Joke!) Paul Beardsell 17:33, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I exactly thought that we make the changes here, and then copy and paste the entire version into the main article. Edit history would not be lost then. But bringing over of what you talk about? I brought over everything from main article into NPOV version what I considered necessary, there was more but if I didn't include it, then it was just because I (and Matt Stan also) would like the article to be a little shorter. I don't want to bring more, but you feel free to do so, if you consider it necessary. I made a few spelling and grammar corrections to what I included from main article, please compare these paragraphs to these in the main article, and change them (or revert my changes) if it is not the way you like. In particular, I changed a bit the wording of "Strong AC" argument, do you agree that it is much more clearly said that way? Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

But a problem was caused. You brought accross things but, in one or two areas, misinterpreted what someone else said. That may have been their fault, not yours, as they might not have been clear in what they wrote. The difficulty is that Wikipedia will not let you compare two different articles to find out what the edit was that you did to the text while it was in transit from one to the other. Please, bring it all over as is, possibly at the end of the article, and save that version BEFORE editing. Then cull, cut, reinterprete, because the author of the corrupted paragraph can then see what has happened. No article should be longer than necessary. But it is sometimes necessary to get longer before getting shorter, as the bishop said to the actress. Paul Beardsell 18:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I may do so, but for this discussion it's important to know what exactly you consider that I misinterpreted? I just want to know, it may be important for editing. I didn't want to misinterprete anything, but different people always understand things slightly in different ways, this is why it's better when several people look at the text, one notices what other doesn't. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

The Issues

Would it be worth summarising what the issues are about this topic? I'll have a go, and perhaps we can reach some consensus:

1) The epimestological question of whether artificial consciousness is possible or whether the term is an oxymoron, i.e. that by definition consciousness cannot be artificial because it wouldn't then be consciousness at all. To get around this, we either have to remove the need for thought from the definition of consciousness or change the title of the piece to simulated concsiousness.

2) The question of whether consciousness or indeed artificial consciousness necessarily requires a predictive capability, as suggested in the original article. Evidence from alternative sources should be provided to justify the original claim, and I have suggested that the alternative of anticipation should be included to cover his requirement.

3) The question of whether it is possible to define an average human for the purposes of setting criteria against which to measure the capabilities of an artificially conscious machine. No attempt has been made to indicate what this average is, and I have suggested that even a totally paralysed person or a highly mentally retarded person is still deemed to be conscious by humane people. I woukld add that a newborn baby or an Altzeimer's sufferer are also both conscious, although the latter probably in an impaired way.

4) the question of whether merely the ability to demonstrate consciousness of some phenomenon should be deemed as consciousness (consciousness in the transitive sense) or whether consciousness is absolute and doesn't require its experiencer to be conscious of anything in particular in order to be conscious (consciousness in the intransitive sense). If we accept that any inanimate object that is used to engineer some outcome is itself conscious by virtue of its function, then there isn't really anything to artificial consciousness and it could simply be defined as anything instrumental in achieving some end.

5) The question of reliable academic sources to back up claims made about a technical subject for the purposes of its entry in an encyclopedia, which I haven't seen any evidence of yet.

Matt Stan 18:21, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's a very good approach to take and it needs some conscious attention, it being 2:30AM here I will be back later. Paul Beardsell 18:37, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[1] The term is bad but it was coined by others like Igor Aleksander and it is not for us to change it. You may start "simulated consciousness" page of your own, this may be even better term, but unfortunately is not much accepted term. But the term is just term, it must be defined and this determines the meaning. It does not necessarily have to mean *artificial* *consciousness*. it may also mean simulating of consciousness by artificial means, and this is not oxymoron. Whether to remove thought is another question, we may also simulate everything what we can simulate about thought. But by some views there may be need to exclude it, all these views must be included in the article.

[2] The article by Igor Alexander where predictive capability is considered as one requirment for AC is included to NPOV version. For NPOV all requirements what may be considered necessary should be listed, including anticipation, awareness etc, but in addition to predictive capability, not to delete one requirement because other requirement is included.

[3] What means average person is more or less self-evident for most of the people. They are considered conscious in other context (medical, whether person can move his body or not). People often don't say that mentally retarded person has a consciousness of average human. New-born baby is another question, this is again a matter of views, but it is likely more than any artificial consciousness, in a sense that by learning it can mostly achieve all abilities and aspects of consciousness of average human.

[4] These are the term "consciousness" defined to be used for specific contexts again. One view is to proceed from the most general definition, and this demands almost all mental abilities of average person to be present for it to qualify to have consciousness.

[5] Of course sources must be included, but as term is used, and also in some sense important, it qualifies the entry into encyclopedia much more than some other subject.

And maybe it's better to discuss a bit more slowly, there would not be enough quality of such discussion this way Nothing wrong in asking 5 questions at once, but is it always the best.

Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

A link "lectures by Igor Aleksander" to show that the term "artificial consciousness" has been used in scientific context http://www.i-c-r.org.uk/lectures/spr2000/aleksander13may2000.htm Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Also see http://www.ph.tn.tudelft.nl/People/bob/papers/conscious_99.html

Thank you indeed Matthew for the paper.

About oxymoron. I talked to several people, including some PhD-s about artificial consciousness and not all consider artificial consciousness just a nonsense. And then again, some scientists consider for example consciousness studies (and everything related) nonsense as well, this is a matter of views again. So if you don't want that anybody considers what you do nonsense, then don't work on anythink what is related to consciousness. At the same time artificial consciousness is likely to be an important link between consciousness and AI. What most of the people I talked to say though is that the term "artificial consciousness" is somewhat misleading because of the words used. Without knowing any definition or anything about it, the first association would be human consciousness built artificially, or even consciousness to replace natural consciousness (very bad meaning). Many people don't like the idea that consciousness can be made by artificial means and think that it must be some cranky effort to build an artificial human. Without definition one cannot realize that a mere simulation of conscious abilities, to be as close to natural abilities as we can get based on our knowlegde of the subject, are meant. Some efforts also involve simulating artificially certain feelings (emotions). Some are the systems intended to be unrestricted enough to be used in enabling the development necessary to achieve certain abilities of consciousness like prediction, or then imagination by enabling creation of different alternatives in certain circumstances. But these are systems not so immensely complicated (often also not easy though), at least very very far from any artificial thinking at the level of the human. So yes, the term is bad and misleading, "simulated consciousness" or similar may be much better. But it was started to use the term "artificial consciousness" in scientific context, and my opinion is that it's not for us to change it. But if you think so, feel free to create "simulated consciousness" article, but "artificial consciousness" article must remain, because this term is in use. Maybe it must be written that some people think it's nonsense, but then to AI also, because some people think that this is nonsene as well. Maybe once AI article was edited by people who thought that it's a failed field (have such impression when I read the older entries), but later people who remained to edit it were people who didn't think so. Comparing AC to AI, AC is by far less significant of course. These were my somewhat random thoughts about the subject. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Matthew, notice that thoughts, and even feelings were included in the definition of consciousness in the paper you presented. What I don't like though is using the word "soul". Even if it has a strictly defined and objective meaning, I think that it's not right to use such word in scientific context, as it comes from religion or belief. There is such a variety of different ideas and interpretations concerning artificial consciousness, artefactual consciousness, simulated consciousness etc, so that the only possibility is to write different views separately, there is no general consensus about that in science yet, but still the research is being done. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004