One
example is Marvin Minsky.
Or,
more specifically, in response to John Horgan's claim (in his The
End of Science) that there are “those who doubted
whether computers could be conscious”, Minsky claimed that
“consciousness is a trivial issue”. Moreover, he said: “I've
solved it, and I don't understand why people don't listen.” (184)
Minsky's
definition of “consciousness” is very simple and very
counter-intuitive. Or perhaps it seems that way simply because I've
never really heard it before. That is, I've never heard anyone define
consciousness is such a specific and peculiar manner.
Horgan
says that Minsky's definition includes the idea that consciousness is
“merely a type of short-term memory”. Minsky himself says that
consciousness is a “low-grade system for keeping records”. And
here's where Minsky's Artificial Intelligence comes in. Horgan says
that
“computer
programmes such as LISP, which have features that allow their
processing steps to be retraced” are, according to Minsky,
'extremely conscious'” (184).
Prima
facie, in Minsky's account there are two things which are either
being correlated with consciousness or which are being said to
actually constitute consciousness: memory and what
philosophers call “higher-order thoughts”.
It's
clear that memory is certainly part of Minsky's picture. After all,
he talks about “short-term memory” and “keeping records”.
In
a sense, higher-order thoughts (or at least higher-order processes) tie
in with the idea of memory in that memories can be about prior
thoughts, processes and experiences.
So,
yes, computers “keep records” of their previous computations or
processes (as do humans). More specifically, programs such as LISP
are said to “allow their processing steps to be retraced”. And
that, according to Minsky, makes them “extremely conscious”.
The
first response to this is to say that memory and higher-order
processes are aspects of consciousness. They don't actually
constitute consciousness.
In
other words, is Minsky making a claim here of numerical identity (or
definition)? Is he saying? -
consciousness
= memory and higher-order processes (thoughts)
Again,
higher-order processes are accompanied by consciousness or occur
“within” consciousness. Acts of memory too are part of
consciousness. Not consciousness itself.
It
may indeed be the case that I'm getting bogged down with metaphors
and analogies here in that phrases such as “processes are
accompanied by consciousness” and “acts of memory are part of
consciousness” may not be conceptually appropriate. They may not
even make sense.
Nonetheless,
there still seems to be something wrong with saying that
consciousness simply is memory or higher-order processes
(thoughts).
If
we move away from computers here and concentrate on persons or human
beings, this would be to say that introspection is consciousness.
Many philosophers have indeed stressed the importance of
introspection and indeed self-consciousness. Though I don't recall
any who've said that introspection is consciousness. Again, I
would say that introspection occurs within (forgive the spatial
metaphor) consciousness or that it is an aspect of consciousness. Not
that it is consciousness.
As
for the words “self-consciousness”: that sort of gives the game
away. It is, after all, meant to signify consciousness of
the self. Thus there are two
things: consciousness
and the self. That
means that self-conscious and consciousness can't be one and the same
thing. Or, in other words, it is the self which is aware of
consciousness or the self which is aware of the self. Again, the self
is something given in (another spatial metaphor!) consciousness.
No comments:
Post a Comment