From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!ucunix.san.uc.edu!millerjx Tue Nov 19 11:10:17 EST 1991
Article 1335 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!ucunix.san.uc.edu!millerjx
>From: millerjx@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Justin W. Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: AI
Keywords: ai,organic,inorganic,philosophy,artificial intelligence
Message-ID: <1991Nov15.235902.6364@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 91 23:59:02 GMT
References: <1991Nov13.003616.1135@ucunix.san.uc.edu> <91Nov15.131947est.8261@telos.ai.toronto.edu>
Distribution: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati
Lines: 47

In article <91Nov15.131947est.8261@telos.ai.toronto.edu> maione@ai.toronto.edu (Ian Christopher Maione) writes:
>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

Yes, in a way, that is what I am saying. But my main point was that we would
not have to worry at all about theory if we used the cause/effect method. If
your purpose is to develop an AI of the human-like type, that was my suggestion
to all. True that AI involves quanta, but that is because we naturally create
quantum theories within our own intelligence. What starts this is not quantum
in itself, but is on a neural/atomic/subatomic level.
-justin


