From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!dclsic!stork!nitgw!orion!todd Tue Jan 28 12:15:41 EST 1992
Article 3002 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!dclsic!stork!nitgw!orion!todd
>From: todd@ai12.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle Agrees with Strong AI?
Message-ID: <TODD.92Jan22225612@ai12.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
Date: 22 Jan 92 13:56:17 GMT
References: <1992Jan16.054716.14332@oracorp.com>
	<1992Jan16.145637.26097@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@nitgw.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Reply-To: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Organization: Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya ,Japan.
Lines: 87
In-reply-to: minsky@media.mit.edu's message of 16 Jan 92 14:56:37 GMT



In article <1992Jan16.145637.26097@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:

>>Well, you can detect my prejudice.  How about this: let's let Searle
>>off the hook for a moment, be asking this question:
>>
>>	     If we could build a machine that is suitably reactive, and can
>>	     assemble raw materials so as to make working copies of itself
>>	     would the resulting machine be ALIVE?
>>
>>In  other words, is "understanding" analogous to "living" in the old
>>vitalist controversies?


This is a case where technology has imitated life quite well.
Viruses (virii?), both biological and program varieties, can 
reproduce quite efficiently.  A computer virus consumes
memory space, it produces offspring, it can even produce excrement
(by freeing up memory - or turning on the printer!)
- all the behavioural requirements of life itself!

Yet, could you admit to your self that computer viruses are alive?

Perhaps it is hard for humans to admit to the "Life Club" entities
which are not the usual bio materials.  And it is equally hard to 
admit to the "Intelligence Club" entities that appear radically
physically different from ourselves.  In other words, humans tend to
discriminate a lot, and this is maybe what drives our arguements.

Essentially, if one imposes a behavioural definition on intelligence, 
and one can reproduce intelligent behaviour with an alternate 
architecture (such as a Chinese room), then you have intelligence.
It may be a little unpalatable, but is nevertheless intelligence.

>From this standpoint, there are two paths one can take:

1) Accept that humans could essentially be replaced by Chinese
   rooms, or robots or whatever, regardless of whether a room
   can be constructed or not.
2) Make a tighter definition of intelligence.  One that can
   be tested more rigourously.

I feel that as AI develops, some humans will begin to accept AI devices
as intelligent beings in themselves, and some will reject them.  But
eventually these people will die out.  Consider that many people 
90 years ago refused to use telephones, because they couldn't accept
that by talking into such a strange looking device, they were actually
communicating with intelligence somewhere down the line.  Yet
today we do it without even thinking about it.  Of course I don't mean 
that a telephone by itself is alive or intelligent, but is certainly
alive and as intelligent as your vocal cords (i.e. as part of
an operational intelligent system)

It's a little like the concept of God in a budding astrophysicists
brain as he/she learns more and more about the structure of the 
universe.  God gets harder and harder to pin down, and the perception
may get revised completely.  Yet the word doesn't get tossed out.
Or it gets replace by a set of new equivalent words, as per fashion.
One day we may decide that intelligence does not exist.  There are
only emergent behaviours.  

People who try to disprove strong AI remind of the following.

To prove that God doesn't exist:

Man: God, if you exist prove it!
God: Ah, but to know me you need faith, so I cannot prove myself directly
     to you.
Man: But by very the act of stating exactly that, you've shown me that man
     doesn't need faith to prove God's existence!  Therefore you don't
     exist!!

And !poof! God as a contradiction disappears in a puff of smoke.
(stolen from _The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy_)




Todd Law
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagoya Institute of Technology, Itoh Laboratory
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
$@%H%C%I!&%i!w0KF#8&5f<<(J.$@L>8E209)6HBg3X(J
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (052-732-2111 ext. 2624)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


