Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub6!daynews!intruder!news
From: David E. Weldon, Ph.D. <David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Computers--Next stage in evolution? Hmmmmmm.....
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 149.25.61.42
Message-ID: <D6KtDM.FxC@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
Sender: news@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com (News administrative Login)
Reply-To: David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM (WELDOD)
Organization: AT&T Global Info Solutions
X-Newsreader: DiscussIT 2.0.1.2 for MS Windows [AT&T Software Products Division]
References: <797026575snz@smithg.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 19:12:58 GMT
Lines: 84
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:28826 comp.ai.philosophy:26593 comp.ai.alife:2969


@==========Chris Gordon-Smith, 4/4/95==========
@
@In article <3lrhis$dnm@news.dungeon.com> Your "Your User 
@Name" writes:
@
@
@> Nonsense! Excuse my french, cognitive processes are inbuilt 
@(nature), 
@> feral or otherwise children - like all animals - still have the 
@ability 
@> to think, learn, and reason. 
@> 
@> Computers on the other hand are in no way "alive". They may 
@be 
@> proh=grammed to imitate life in a crude manner, but should 
@never be 
@> confused with true life.
@> 
@> It is perhaps worth suggesting that researchers into AI etc 
@spend some 
@> time around living people. By living I don't mean "sad terminal 
@junkies", 
@> but spend a few evenings down the pub/bar listening and 
@observing real 
@> people at play. You can learn a lot!
@
@This is a pretty abusive article to post, but I'll try to answer as 
@though the 
@point were intended seriously.
@
@The idea that computers can only imitate life is similar to the idea 
@that 
@there is some sort of 'life force' which cannot exist on a computer. 
@This 
@may be held as an article of faith by many religious people. 
@Roger Penrose has 
@a go at framing the argument in more scientific terms in 'The 
@Emperor's New 
@Mind' and (I believe) in his new book, which I haven't read.
@
@If you want to insist that there is something about life which is 
@different in 
@principle from systems that can be built using computers then you 
@need some 
@kind of rational argument, unless you're making the statement 
@from a religious 
@point of view.

Ok.  How about this.  The brain processes primarily analog signals.  Digital
signals are used to get information from the sense organs because a digitized
signal, properly repeated and amplified over the transmission path, loses very
little information compared to an analog signal (otherwise AT&T would not have
spent all that money upgrading the long lines from analog to digital. 
However, when the digital pulses reach the brain, there is all sorts of analog
activity including varying level DC, sawtooth signals and various types of
sinusoids.  If these signals are the stuff of information processing in the
brain, then it is incombant on AI researchers to show how a two-level logic
machine can model the analog processes in the brain.

Don't get me wrong!  I believe and expect AI technology will eventually
perform many of the higher level human tasks such as planning, problem
solving, etc.  I just don't expect a digital computer to ever be sentinent.

@
@Personally, I find this whole debate rather like the one about 
@whether or not 
@photography is art. Photography (Alife) is interesting in its own 
@right, and 
@worth pursuing regardless of whether or not it is Art (Real Life). 
@That's not 
@to say that the Alife vs Real Life argument doesn't matter - it 
@does. But while 
@its being resolved there is a lot we can learn from pursuing Alife.
@
I agree with you here.  AI research and applications should be pursued in
their own right.
@-- 
@Chris Gordon-Smith
@London
@UK
@Email: chris@smithg.demon.co.uk
@

