From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!amnell Mon Oct 19 16:59:43 EDT 1992
Article 7321 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!amnell
>From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Simulated Brain
Message-ID: <1992Oct17.185235.14938@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 17 Oct 92 18:52:35 GMT
References: <26893@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1992Oct15.095211.10805@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <1264@tdat.teradata.COM>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 34

In article <1264@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com 
(Stanley Friesen) writes:

>Until we have a fairly complete understanding of brain operation.
>Then it does become possible to test for the existance of relevant features.

Yes, but this could take a very long time indeed, given the formidable
complexity of the brain.  Neurological research is still in its infancy
in many respects (not that I'm an expert on the subject, nor on AI).

>Except you seem to reject all categories of evidence for mind.
>That does not seem like an open mind to me.

I don't understand this elliptical criticism, please clarify.  Where
have I expressed an unwillingness to consider relevant evidence?

>I do not claim that an artificial mind is *certainly* possible, only that
>the past history of science makes it *likely* that it is possible.

An artificial mind may certainly be possible; what is at issue is how
closely its capacities would match, fall short of, or even exceed those
of a human mind.  Where in the history of science do you see signs that
an artificial brain capable of true cognition is possible?  I see only
the history of digital computers, and recent efforts at neural network
simulation that so far have produced some impressive feats of pattern
recognition, but nothing even approaching the power of a human mind.
Again, this does not mean that I hold such developments to be unlikely.
I am merely observing how far the present state of the art in AI falls
short of the speculative dreams of some `techo-romantics'.

-- 
Marko Amnell
amnell@klaava.helsinki.fi
Graduate Student in Philosophy


