From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!mcnc!ecsgate!lrc.edu!lehman_ds Tue Jan 28 12:15:22 EST 1992
Article 2983 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!mcnc!ecsgate!lrc.edu!lehman_ds
>From: lehman_ds@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <1992Jan21.164022.132@lrc.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 92 21:40:22 GMT
References: <1992Jan18.144220.11862@oracorp.com> <1992Jan18.195906.15800@news.media.mit.edu> <6029@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC
Lines: 38

In article <6029@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
> In article <1992Jan18.195906.15800@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan18.144220.11862@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>>>David Chalmers writes:
>>>
>>(Discussion of lookup table, etc. omitted)
>>
>>>I agree that the giant lookup table is ridiculous as a way to
>>>implement AI, but I don't understand why it is so obvious that such an
>>>implementation would lack mentality. Your answer might be that it
>>>would lack the internal states that real minds have, but I don't even
>>>grant that: in the case of the lookup table, the internal state would
>>>be coded as a location in the lookup table. It is certainly true that
>>>this interpretation of internal state would not obey the same
>>>transition rules as our own internal states, but what makes the one
>>>"conscious processing" and the other not?
> 
> This whole point relies on "conscious processing" being something
> mysterious so that, for all we know, our coffee cups are conscious
> and just pretending not to be.  Or some very simple program, nowhere
> near passing the Turing Test, is conscious, just not very bright.
  - much deleted - 
> -- jeff
   Jeff brings up a good point.  We seem to be trying to prove and disprove
ideas that really can't, as with Einsteins theory of Relativity, it can never
be proven.  To say two things are distinguised by something we cannot prove
exists makes little sense.  In an infinite universe, there are infinite
possibilities, but for the most part, we work in a quite finite space and
must choose what fits the rules of that finite space.  The rules of a superset
may differ from the rules of a sub-set, but when dealing with the subset
we cannot use the rules of the superset.
   For anyone who would like to read a silly, but good example of what
Jeff has just stated, read Duglass Adams Hictchikers Guide to the Galaxy.
In it are mice, that accually built earth as a computer to find out the
question of the universe and are acting like dumb animals so they can
follow the progress of their computer without interfering.
   Drew Lehman
   Lehman_ds@mike.lrc.edu


