From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!unmvax!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Mon Mar  9 18:36:06 EST 1992
Article 4346 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!unmvax!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence and Understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar8.052956.28438@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 8 Mar 92 05:29:56 GMT
References: <1992Mar6.011131.4146@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Mar6.051607.13266@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar6.171417.15561@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Lines: 69

In article <1992Mar6.171417.15561@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>In article <1992Mar6.051607.13266@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>
>I am having difficulty distinguishing between determinied volition
>(of the type that a computer has) and affected volition (persumably
>the type that a human has), It seems to me that they are the same.
  And you should be; as I haven't worked it out yet... Promises, promises
huh?  Some day Zirdum, maybe some day.  I still have to work out Heidegger's
Dasein before I can get to the difference I am trying to make...

>
>Once a human is broken down, we find that it can ony come to
>its conclusions using tautologies that are inside of its brain!
>No, wait that is wrong! If a human is broken down we no longer 
>are speaking about a human, same goes for computers, if broken
>down into parts we are no longer speaking about the entity, so
>your argument about individual parts has no force.
  Point well taken, I will be more careful in the future.  I still think, 
though, that the wonderful computer that you purport is a mirage and is
purely the way it is by your subjective feelings about it.  It is empty
none the less.  But, then again, I shouldn't expect you to accept these 
sloppy statements at all..So I will return to the world of "thoughts" and
see what I can do.
>>>So again, I come to the conclusion, whatever humans can do
>>>computers can do just as well!
>>  Yeah, what computer do you have that can translate Gogol to English?
>>Wasn't it that famous russian translation program, which can do whatever
>>humans can do, that insisted on translating "Hydraulic Ram" as "water goat."
>>If this is as good as you think humans can do, you don't hang out with
>>very many humans.  HOw can you live with yourself--you seriously believe
>>that the computer is just as good as you?  Notice: you did not use
>>"possibly", you used the present tense..  Beware of those logical falacies,
>>which to be sure, your computer is far better at than you. ;-)
>>
>I see now where you are coming from, you really do fear that people
>can create something that is better than they are! Do you seriously
>beleive that people are better at adding numbers than computers,
>how about searching information, how about precision control.
>Computers exceed the capability of people in many areas, I do not
>believe, and no one has shown, that there is any reason that
>this progression cannot continue to other areas of human skill.
>My use of the present tense is justified in that we are not waiting
>for any breakthru in physics to build computers in a significantly
>different form from present day machines, the only thing that is
>holding us up is the programming, and this can be cured by a
>little ingenuity and hard work! Remember, up until the nuclear
>bomb exploded there were many physicists in the WORLD that
>insisted that it would never work! They were proven wrong!
  Non, I don't fear that people are trying to create something that is better
than they are or else I would fear all of technology.  IN fact, this makes
my point, technology is nothing but the extension of some human attribute--
this extension alone accounts for its non-humaness.  Further, we must not 
confuse ourselves into thinking that a computer, which is extremely good
at math, is somehow the same as we--or as you put it 'whatever a human 
can do a computer can do as well.'  After all, it was once thought that
a telephone switch board was a brain.  No, Zirdum, my deepest fear is
self-delusion and self-confusion--something which AI comes dangerously 
close to.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Where's my mouse to get my footer?"
"Oh yeah, I am using a different machine.."

Charles O. Onstott, III
onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


