he wrote: >David McFadzean
>Sat, 02 Jan 1999 17:16:46 -0700
>
>>that point I'm trying to make is that a machine, of
>>whatever sort, has no reason to be more limited in
>>its responses than we are.
>Are you saying it is possible for a machine to act like it is
conscious,
>yet not be? (A "zombie" in philosophical parlance.)
didn't Julian Jaynes support the idea that the "bicameral-mind" sort of people were "not conscious" in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" ?
And if people could speak and act and build buildings and create art and religion(s) and still be "not conscious" then it's not all that great a leap to imagine a "not conscious" reacting/interacting machine of silicon hardware could trick some folks into believing that it was "exhibiting consciousness".
th