From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!think.com!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!tdat!swf Mon Oct 19 16:59:42 EDT 1992
Article 7319 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!think.com!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!tdat!swf
>From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Simulated Brain
Message-ID: <1264@tdat.teradata.COM>
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:47:58 GMT
References: <1992Oct12.224008.16222@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Oct13.085347.13831@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <26893@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1992Oct15.095211.10805@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Sender: news@tdat.teradata.COM
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit
Lines: 45

In article <1992Oct15.095211.10805@klaava.Helsinki.FI> amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
|
|Some illusion!  The point I was making is that an artificial brain, say
|a computer built according to recursion theory, no matter how complex,
|is still based on a certain model of what a mind is.  There is no
|guarantee that this model captures _all_ features of a real mind.

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

|A
|real mind may have capacities that far outstrip such a machine.  Or
|again, it may not.  Who knows?  But it is not prima facie obvious to me
|that a machine would have the same capacity for eg. imagination and
|creativity that we have.  The Computer is only the latest model of
|Man; we have rejected so many earlier models in the past that it might
|be wiser to maintain a healthy skepticism about the latest paradigm.

To some degree, I agree.  I do not believe that the current naive
computational models are sufficient, or even aproximately complete.

I suspect that neural network research, in conjunction with more 'ordinary'
neurological research will substantially reorient our thinking about
mental activity.

But that does not alter the fact that I see no reason to posit any
functionality that is not thoroughly grounded in physical reality,
and (on present data) in computation.

|Perhaps there really is something unique about Carbon-based life.
|I note that there is no real AI yet, so there is no evidence on either
|side of the issue, there are only 'techno-romantics' and 'humanistic-
|romantics' as a French philosopher once put it.  Which side is right
|remains to be seen.  Personally, I'm trying to keep an open mind on
|the subject.
|
Except you seem to reject all categories of evidence for mind.
That does not seem like an open mind to me.

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.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com


