"J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com> On Sun, 3 May 1998
>input (sensations), but also relates to them by, for example,
>remembering them, associating them with other sensations, combining,
>analyzing, observing, and/or processing them in any of a variety of
>ways, then that complex system of relations might constitute
>sentience (or consciousness).
It's easy to prove that any computer can "remember", "associate" and "analyze"
input data. That only leaves "observing", but that means placing input data
into consciousness so it's no help in defining consciousness.
>It still remains possible to differentiate between intelligence and
>sentience.
How? What test could you possibly perform on someone to make this distinction?
>highly intelligent entities may completely lack sentience.
I've been asking this question for years on this list but have never received
an answer, if what you say is true what's the point of sentience?
Intelligence has survival value, but if the two are unrelated why would
random mutation and natural selection bother to make anything sentient?
It seems to me it would be like a fifth wheel, and yet I know for a fact that
evolution did bother to make at least one thing conscious.
John K Clark johnkc@well.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBNU1RXH03wfSpid95AQHPQwTvfdbPaE44VNM/IOUsZOKwCZ1g+qky+HTE
s802PvXb/XtDXQcyHZ70Uq3P8Q5T19VFVO5l+3t5edcRicw9SnO7067sRkq39SNm
LT4hFhyZw2gVFD79/+CZIBZHIjmWp44d0ZCAVdfRPKBTjYgXwHjL7H5fyMDQJ10e
cIoHkWsIZN9rQGA3pmsHBuRp+pOdEGC46lcGDXBMc40yLh7+zJ0=
=zk9k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----