From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!telos.ai.toronto.edu!maione Tue Nov 19 11:10:13 EST 1991
Article 1328 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!telos.ai.toronto.edu!maione
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
>From: maione@ai.toronto.edu (Ian Christopher Maione)
Subject: Re: AI
Message-ID: <91Nov15.131947est.8261@telos.ai.toronto.edu>
Keywords: ai,organic,inorganic,philosophy,artificial intelligence
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
References: <1991Nov13.003616.1135@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Distribution: comp.ai.philosophy
Date: 15 Nov 91 18:18:43 GMT
Lines: 38

In article <1991Nov13.003616.1135@ucunix.san.uc.edu> millerjx@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Justin W. Miller) writes:
>While I am new to this group, I would like to toss a few bones into the crowd.
>Though I know little of neural networks and the like, this is
>comp.ai.philosophy, not technical talk...so here goes. Oh-- Please respond in
>some way on this board so I can see if this is working (again, I am new).
>
> Inorganic vs. Organic
> ---------------------
>
>Eventually, when working in AI, one must come to the understanding that we are
>products of our environment (to purloin a phrase). The organic being is simply
>a mass of the residual matter it has consumed (in one way or another). Thus,
>the brain, being organic-molecule in structure, has a finite capability for all
>operations the mind is known to perform (no extra-dimensional space). While the
>actual memory provided by the organic structure may be enormous in comparison
>to inorganic memory, there is a definite touch-point here.
>
>Of the many possible theories as to how the brain actually processes
>information, an inorganic emulation can be performed with AI, regardless of the
>theory of organic thought. This can best be done using the cause/effect method.
>All transpiring mental processes that we are aware of, in this method, are the
>only ones that matter. As such, there are ways an AI can emulate our thoughts:
>starting with basic stimuli, an AI could develop (more later on development),
>learn, and still retain its integrity as an inorganic being. Agreeably, this is
>much more complex than 1+1, but it is (as I see it) the basis of life. As I
>collect my thoughts, I will explain more of this theory some time soon.

   It seems to me as if you're saying that if we simulated the brain at a
neural/chemical/atomic/subatomic/whatever level, we could replicate its
function.  Theoretically, I suppose this is true, but what use is it?  The
whole point of AI is not to do pure physics, but to understand the mind on
a more functional level.  In addition, even a simulation of the brain on
a digital computer is impossible if quantum level effects are in any way
significantly involved in its operation (see Roger Penrose, "The Emperor's
New Mind").

Regards,
Ian


