From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!nlc Tue Jun 23 13:21:31 EDT 1992
Article 6342 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!nlc
>From: nlc@media.mit.edu (Nick Cassimatis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Vitalism and Intellectuaism
Message-ID: <1992Jun21.211451.3810@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: 21 Jun 92 21:14:51 GMT
References: <1992Jun11.181124.19003@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> <488@tdat.teradata.COM> <1992Jun20.200712.2918@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Lines: 64

SORRY FOR MY PREVIOUS POST THAT WAS ALL QUOTE AND NO REPLY -- I DON'T
KNOW WHAT HAPPEND -- HERE IS WHAT I MEANT TO SEND.

In article <1992Jun20.200712.2918@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes:
>>|If the virus-other species system is sufficiently complicated to defy
>>|simulation by symbol manipulating devices, which maybe it is, then maybe
>>|understanding is also something which requires something more than 
>>|symbol manipulation-being as such or whatever.
>
>>It is certainly beyond the capabilities of currently available computational
>>devices, but is this an intrinsic limitation, or just a current engineering
>>limit?  The answer is not clear.  (There is *also* the fact that we do not
>>know enough about the virus-cell system to fully specify the parameters of
>>the simulation).
>
If the answer is not clear and there are constant examples from the
history of science of seemingly impossible things being done, then why
think that it is not possible?  Now I'm not sure what is meant by
symbol manipulation, but if the manipulation is powerful enough to
simulate a Turing Machine, then there a whole lot of computable
functions that have not been dreamed of.

Whether we can ever have computers that use language and organize
their behavior on the basis of scene recognition and plan their motion
and so on -- this is an empirical question.  Searle doesn't seem to
doubt the impossibility of this, but that IF we got computers to
behave thus, they would lack "understanding" or "intelligence" or
whatever.  Now boggling over what this could mean and if it is true is
a waste of time -- because it doesn't matter either way.  The thing
would work the way it does and a verbal hernia isn't going to change
anything.

>definition of experimental determinimism). I just cannot think of how
>one would do this with living things, even a bacteria.

With all due respect, this does not mean much.  The history of science
is riddled with "I just cannot think...." statements that someone has
thought out.  NOw I'm not a bundle of ideas on this subject on myself,
but I am trying and I see no reason to doubt significant progress in
my lifetime.

Here's another little thought experiment: imagine that you are borned
into a society in which the computers have run themselves long before
anyone can remember, there is nothing in the culture to make one think
otherwise.  Now imagine looking at the marvel of some computer
animated version of Swan Lake.  It would be as natural to think "I
can't think of how you would model that computer.  What it does is so
beautiful and complex."  Since the computer is something as given in
nature as a rock or a tree OR A CELL in this society, this would be no
different from looking at a cell and boggling at the task of
describing its state.  OF course, the computer can be modelled easily.
WHy not the cell, or the brain?

Another caveat on the whole modelling quantum effects contreversy:
since one mu st take into account quantum effects to design a
transister today, one would thi nk that one would need to understand
these to model the comptuer.  BUT WE DON't. The computer can
completely be modelled as a turing machine.  Of course, thiswould
explain what happens when you hit it with gamma rays, but that's not
the s ort of understanding we want.  Why should it be any different
with the brain --even if we must take into account quantum effects to
understand the design of th e neuron?

-Nick


