From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca!sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca!ward Wed Sep 16 21:22:00 EDT 1992
Article 6806 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai:4208 comp.robotics:2115 comp.ai.philosophy:6806
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca!sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca!ward
>From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Turing Indistinguishability is a Scientific Criterion
Message-ID: <Bu7oK5.BIK@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca>
Sender: news@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1992Sep6.200121.4383@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:07:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.200121.4383@Princeton.EDU> harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:

>It is arbitrary to
>ask for more from a machine than I ask from a person, just because it's
>a machine

This sentence caught my eye.  Why is it arbitrary to ask more from a machine 
than a person?  It would seem to me that throughout human history the entire
purpose of machines is that they enable us to do more.  Start with simple
examples:

If I can push a nail into the wall with my own hands, then why would I build
a hammer?

If I can pull a plough, then why would I make a tractor?

To get into the domain of computers; if I can perform 50 Gigaflops then
why would I need a Cray?

One does not make machines that merely duplicate human function - they must
do it better.  If you wish to create a thinking machine, then it must think
better than a human (otherwise, I can tell you of a lot simpler (and
_definitely_ more fun :-) method of creating thinking beings).

Of course, the only thing that puts us at the top of the evolutionary heap
seems to be the fact that we outthink everthing else on the planet.  So, if
you still want to create a thinking machine, be prepared to become No. 2.


