Newsgroups: comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!news
From: "Alan J. Robinson" <robin073@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Does AI make philosophy obsolete?  (Was: Quantifying literary progress)
To: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
Message-ID: <48913.robin073@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_18A
Sender: news@news.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: dialup-5-89.gw.umn.edu
X-Popmail-Charset: English
Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 15:49:47 GMT
Lines: 63

On 28 Aug 1995 21:18:21 GMT, 
Silke-Maria  Weineck  <weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu > wrote:

>: Even though the digital computer is a technological innovation 
>: in the same way that the clock and the printing press were, it 
>: also has a special significance to scientific views of mind and the 
>: brain and biology in general.  It is true that the computational 
>: architecture and capabilities of the brain appear to be entirely 
>: different from those of existing computer technology, but the 
>: relationship between computers and the brain is much more than mere 
>: analogy - it's not just a description in terms of the technology at 
>: hand.
>
>Excuse me, but in the context of this debate this relationship is *not 
>even* an analogy, for reasons you yourself hint at; it is at best a 
>metaphor, only we have not yet heard what it is a metaphor of. 
>
>: There were similar developments earlier in the history of science 
>: when it was realized that other aspects of life were not special, but 
>: obeyed the same scientific laws as everything else in the universe 
>: and had their parallels in technology.  (One of the big debates at the 
>: moment is whether mind is something special and goes beyond the known 
>: laws of physics and chemistry - based on previous experience this is 
>: unlikely, but one never knows.)
>
>These "known laws" are themselves products of the brain before they are 
>anything else.
>
>Silke

I was thinking more in terms of the equivalences between brains and 
computers, (which really do go beyond metaphor and analogy), 
rather than the perceived differences.  There certainly is a school of 
thought which says that unless it can be demonstrated that computers 
can be truly self aware and have emotions and come up with completely 
novel ideas, then the computer comparison is inadequate and 
inappropriate.

Point well taken, but in my other reply I tried to show that the 
engineering issues are also highly relevant to the discussion of what 
brains are for and why they evolved in the first place.

Perhaps I should have explained myself more, but the earlier 
developments in science I was referring to which had a bearing on the 
question of whether life is unique also had an engineering aspect -  
the synthesis of urea from inorganic compounds was a demonstration 
that organically occuring compounds were not special, but there was 
also the realization that animals derived their energy from the 
oxidation of fuel just as steam engines did, and obeyed the same laws 
of physics and chemistry in the process.

As far as the question in the thread title goes, I think it is the 
other way around - AI and computers have brought philosophical issues 
to the forefront and shown that the disputes of philosophy which go back to
antiquity really are of fundamental importance, in a way that hasn't 
been demonstrated before.   They are not mere academic quibbles 
best confined to philosophy departments.

AJR
          
>
>

