From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news Mon Jun 15 16:04:30 EDT 1992
Article 6189 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news
>From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Vitalism and Intellectuaism
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.131608.23965@cs.ucf.edu>
Sender: news@cs.ucf.edu (News system)
Organization: University of Central Florida
References: <1992Jun10.041831.16727@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 13:16:08 GMT

In article <1992Jun10.041831.16727@news.media.mit.edu> nlc@media.mit.edu (Nick  
Cassimatis) writes:
> In article <1992Jun8.134537.468@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas  
Clarke) writes:
> >In article <1992Jun7.002032.614@news.media.mit.edu> nlc@media.mit.edu (Nick  
> >Cassimatis) writes:
> >> I'm
> >> willing to bet quite a bit that these problems won't be solved by
> >> people who expend most of their "mental energies" to solve Searle's
> >> puzzle.
> >It seems to me important to establish, if possible, what the fundamental
> >limits are.  We already know time should not be wasted on the halting 
> >problem.
> 
> Yes, but the halting problem is well defined (it's part of math --
> which means that it is well-defined by definition!)  The rest of my
> post was an attempt to show that the putative limits of understanding
> and so forth are not well defined.
 
Let's define them, if possible!  A good job for collective net
intelligence. No?

> >Think of questions to the computer : "Computer, correlate positronic
> >emission anomalies with unusual Romulan activity in sector 6." which
> >require intelligence.  Then compare Data's questions, "Jordy.  Why do
> >you laugh?" which show consciousness.  It is interesting that the
> >writers have made Data the only one of his kind; the secret of
> >the conscious (?) robot died with his creator.
> 
> What is so special about a why-question that it requires consciousness?

Excerpt from the official TT(T) scoring guide:)

	Reiteration of previous statement: 1 point
	Change of subject:		   2 points
	...
        Knowlege of larger world          25 points
	...
	Introspective why question:      100 points   
        ...
 
> There is a debate among some biologists concerning whether a virus is
> alive or not.  My Bio class in high school spent about 30 minutes one
> time debating this.  Though I wasn't particularly interested in the
> begining, I became so when it the following question dawned on me:
> "What would it matter either way?"  <deleted>  Notice that no
> self-respecting biologist would suggest that rats have a
> life-substance that a virus doesn't -- the way we think about
> organisms is sophisticated enough not to need vitalistic terms.
> 
> Now think about the debate over whether computers can *really* be
> intelligent or *really* understand.  How is it different from the
> question of wether a virus is alive or not?

I think biochemists can reproduce a virus from basic chemicals right
now.  Make up a strand of DNA/RNA with right sequence, make up some
proteins for the coat (this might actually be harder), put all in
test tube and shake.  Voila!  Virus particles.

No way can they yet make a functioning cell.  I'll bet that they'll
never make one by puting chemicals in a test tube and shaking!   

This is one difference between viruses and "living" cells. I see
a similar difference between intelligence and conciousness.

Functions of life (reproductive structure) are "easy", 
life itself is hard.  In the same way conscious functions (chess 
playing, specific disease diagnosis) are proving doable, but 
consciousness, thinking itself, is much harder.  

I'll bet the techniques used in computer chess and expert systems 
will not play a roll in achieving artificial conciousness.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu


