From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!rutgers!bagate!asi!disc.dla.mil!dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil!ntm1836 Wed Feb  5 11:56:10 EST 1992
Article 3393 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!rutgers!bagate!asi!disc.dla.mil!dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil!ntm1836
>From: ntm1836@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (Ken Burch)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <5009@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil>
Date: 31 Jan 92 15:06:04 GMT
Organization: DLA Systems Automation Center, Columbus
Lines: 29


David Gudeman writes:
> ]Now, a century later, common sense has flip-flopped on this issue; it
> ]now seems implausible that intelligence could be the result of design,
> ]although it could very well arise by accident.
> 
> What seems implausible is that intelligence could be the result of
> design when the designers have no idea how to even detect intelligence
> in others, much less create it.

The point is that some day we probably _will_ discover how intelligence
and consciousness work.  If you feel that there is something inherently 
unknowable about the mechanisms of intelligence and consciousness, or
that intelligence and consciousness are not based on mechanical processes,
then please elaborate.

We can only work with the tools we have and with the knowledge we have.
Someday we'll probably have better tools and better knowledge.  
If consciousness is based on physical, mechanical processes, then
these processes will likely be discovered.  When these processes 
are discovered and understood, they may be subject to duplication.  
When these processes are duplicated, the duplication itself might
well give rise to a mind and an ego unable to immediately comprehend
the processes that support it.  Granted, it's an assumption, but
I haven't seen any substantial argument to refute it, notwithstanding
the Chinese Room and yours or Zeleny's remarks.


Ken


