From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!agate!stanford.edu!rutgers!uwvax!meteor!tobis Mon Oct 19 16:58:59 EDT 1992
Article 7258 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai:4771 comp.ai.neural-nets:4707 comp.ai.philosophy:7258 sci.psychology:4831
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!agate!stanford.edu!rutgers!uwvax!meteor!tobis
>From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Keywords: penrose, church-turing hypothesis
Message-ID: <1992Oct14.021207.13508@meteor.wisc.edu>
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:12:07 GMT
References: <1992Oct7.151533.7822@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <BvytMD.9FC@cs.bham.ac.uk> <1992Oct11.200006.685@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science
Lines: 36

In article <1992Oct11.200006.685@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:

>I don't want to get involved in this, really I don't.  Let me only
>state what I think the argument is about:

>By "strong AI" is meant, I believe, the view that an algorithm can
>respond to stimulus in a way exhibiting intelligence.  

That statement is trivially true. since algorithms can play chess better 
than their designers. I think that AI postulates more than that. I think
that strong AI postulates that an algorithm can have a subjective mental
state to the same extent that a human can. Unfortunately, AI people 
are constantly confusing mind and intelligence. Sargon III has intelligence,
but presumably no mind, while a person in the dream state has mind, but
presumably little or no intelligence.

>Sloman says that the strong AI thesis is wrong because "behaviour
>alone is not a sufficient basis for attributing intelligence" [his AIJ
>review, p.365].  

Granting the usual AI misuse of the word "intelligence" to mean having a 
subjective mental state, this statement is trivially true.

>And what it tells us is that behavior alone is a sufficient basis
>for attributing anything whatsoever.

Only if subjective experience can be reduced to objective observations.
At present, there is no reasonable prospect of success in this endeavor.

>We in AI cannot afford to relinquish the strong AI thesis, and at
>this point, we have no substantive reason for doing so.

We humans cannot afford to accept the strong AI thesis, and at this point,
we have no substantive reason for doing so.

mt


