Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!crash!snodgras
From: snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Organization: CTS Network Services (CTSNET), San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 17:59:24 GMT
Message-ID: <snodgras.779997564@crash.cts.com>
References: <34qm2c$ei2@scratchy.reed.edu> <SWRA01.94Sep11122615@cs19.cs.aukuni.ac.nz> <1994Sep11.025940.21054@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@crash.cts.com (news subsystem)
Nntp-Posting-Host: crash.cts.com
Lines: 53


     Some posters here have disputed the importance of discussing
philosophical aspects over programming. One poster gave an example
of simulation of a meandering river as a good practical thing to discuss
in relation to alife or AI. My opinion is that philosphy is fundamental
to program concept and design. The river simulator seems to think that
discussing "philosphy" is trivial, while simulating river meandering is
important -- a comical notion. His choice to study river meandering is
itself demonstrative of a philosophical vacuousness.

     Minsky asserts that vitalism is defunct and without supporting
scientific evidence. Whether it is defunct or not is a matter of opinion,
since 99% of the world believe it unquestioningly, while a few intellectual
types with an axe to grind assert the mechanistic view. Minsky himself has
made a career out of touting AI, but you never hear him talk about the
scientific evidence behind his beliefs -- because there are none. There
is no more evidence that material is mechanistic rather than vitalistic
than the opposite. To the contrary, it is the nature of scientific modeling
that determines this: it is convenient to scientific methodology to imagine
that procedural assumptions are fundamental properties.

     Philosophical assumptions determine the conceptual framework in which
you program. If you buy into the mechanistic view, you will naturally
attempt to program artificial reasoning systems. If you don't, you will
attempt to program systems which extend the powers of your own form of
life. Of course, people like Minsky and his groupies have their eye on
playing high priests to the alife superbeing (which they will of course
control). They percieve a resource which can be exploited, no different
from any other. You can be sure Minsky works hard to promote his "philosophy"
and to shower contempt on anyone who disagrees with him (and to make false
promises like immortality etc). This stuff is what draws the young and
impressionable into the fold -- not some programming tricks. If you think
philosphy is not for the a-life group, that's a matter of consensus. But
if you think it's not the driving force behind this and AI research, that
is where you're wrong.

     As a programmer of the "other" type, into augmentation systems, I
hope some young readers out that recognize the Minsky-style fakeout when
they see it. I myself started out there. It is a grand illusion. Once it
gets in your mind, the idea of autonomous artificial systems is hard to 
get out. I've been on a long struggle to remove it (and the stupifying
effect it has), from my programming ever since. (It still colors
my work, unfortunately.) It's like an addiction. When you think about it
you're filled with some kind of profound longing, but over and over you
discover it goes nowhere, is merely an amusement or toy. Whatever life is,
it resides in ourselves, and moves us to do what we do. It is not emergent
but fundamental. It is not designed, it designed itself. Don't allow
your instinct to create life to become perverted down the Minski primrose
path. It goes nowhere. Take it from someone who's been there (over and
over).

      JES
         
