From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!olivea!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!jeff Tue Jan 28 12:17:31 EST 1992
Article 3130 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!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!olivea!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Impossibility of flight vs impossibility of AI
Message-ID: <1992Jan24.185502.9125@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 24 Jan 92 18:55:02 GMT
References: <1992Jan21.144204.29245@oracorp.com> <1992Jan21.184559.17670@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan22.173928.138@lrc.edu>
Sender: news@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Network News Administrator)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 33

In article <1992Jan22.173928.138@lrc.edu> lehman_ds@lrc.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jan21.184559.17670@aisb.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>> In article <1992Jan21.144204.29245@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>>>
>>>I was trying to make an analogy between artificial intelligence and
>>>artificial flight. Considering birds and bees as evidence for the
>>>possibility of an artificial flying machine is comparable, in my
>>>opinion, to considering humans as evidence of the possibility of an
>>>artificial thinking machine.
>> 
>> Flight is not analogous to consciousness, thinking, etc, because
>> as-if flight is the same as flight.
>
>  I think that is the point he was trying to make.

Sure, that's what he was trying to show -- that as-if consciousness
is consciousness -- but where this is not controversial for flight,
it is controversial for consciousness.  That's why he have philosophy
of mind and not philosophy of flight.

A better argument of this general sort is to note that while
cumputed (simulated) rain doesn't get anyone wet computed text
editing does edit text.  (Or so the argument goes.)

Moreover, the Turing Test (which we might say detects articifial
thinking) goes only one way: it's at best sufficient for real
thinking, but not necessary.  (Something can think w/o behaving
as if it does.)  So thinking and as-if thinking aren't the _same_.
On the other hand, flight, and going through the air, soaring
around, etc, "as if" flying is flying.  It's not like you can
fly but not behave as if flying.

-- jd


