From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Tue Nov 26 12:31:46 EST 1991
Article 1525 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:1525 sci.philosophy.tech:1071
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Daniel Dennett
Message-ID: <1991Nov23.110538.5803@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 23 Nov 91 16:05:36 GMT
References: <9111184448@mwc.com> <DAVIDMC.91Nov21100802@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca> <1991Nov22.001554.24682@eecs.nwu.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 88
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1991Nov22.001554.24682@eecs.nwu.edu> 
kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes:

>zeleny@walsh.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>                         if you see someone offer a reductive argument
>>purporting to explain the properties of mind, such as consciousness,
>>cognition, and intentionality, in terms of the alleged computational
>>properties of the brain, you may conclude that he is a charlatan or an
>>ignoramus.

MLK:
>I maintain that an argument such as this one has no place in a group under
>the "sci" hierarchy.  You are not making a scientific statement, you
>are making a religious one.  I don't believe in ghosts, but if I state that
>there is no way to prove to me that ghosts exist, that I have left the realm
>of scientific exploration.  Just as you have here.  You are, in effect, saying
>"I have this belief system, and no mater what evidence I am shown, I will
>throw out the evidence before I throw out the belief system."  Sure sounds
>like a religion to me.

I don't believe that perpetuum mobile can be constructed; nor do I believe
that human intelligence can be duplicated by a finite state automaton.  In
fact, I feel much more confident when making the second claim, since I know
a whole lot more about semantics, than about physics.  Thus I issue the
above challenge in full confidence that it won't be met.  Of course, there
always remains the possibility of a miracle; however, until and unless I
come across a burning bush, regardless of your feelings about my claims, I
shall continue to maintain them based on my beliefs in their intrinsic
value, as well as the lack of such in strong AI research.

MZ:
>>           This conclusion might be justified historically, ...

MLK:
>You cannot use the fact that no one has come up with a good theory yet to 
>show then no one ever will.  Before we could make accurate observations of 
>the heavens you might have said that since no one had ever come up with a 
>good theory removing the earth from the center of the universe, that no one
>ever would.  You would have been wrong then, just as you might be wrong now.

Reductionist claims have a very special epistemological status, in that
they rely upon a particular structural analysis; if this analysis can be
shown invalid, one is perfectly justified in ignoring further attempts.
Furthermore, various pseudoscientific quests like the search for the
philosophical stone, the panacea, the fountain of youth, the perpetuum
mobile, and the homunculus, all share similar teleological features, all
being quasi-rational expressions of human desire to have wealth, health,
longevity, free energy, and a perfect mechanical slave, respectively.
While all others have fallen by the wayside, the last one is still with us;
for these reasons alone the study of history is mandatory for all who would
take the claims of strong AI seriously.

MZ:
>>For those unconvinced by the arguments of Penrose, I have a challenge of my
>>own making: develop an adequate semantical theory that would characterize
>>the relevant relations of expressing and denoting, and could be implemented
>>by a finite state automaton.  So far, John McCarthy has failed to come up
>>with an answer; anyone who feels that he can do better, is hereby invited
>>to try.

MLK:
>Do you maintain that science is a closed field? Do you really believe that 
>there is no possibility for further reaserch?  I suppose you would have told
>Babbage to give up his playing around since he couldn't actually build anything
>that worked. Of course, if you had done so, we might not be having this 
>conversation now.

In fact, I would have advised him to continue working on the computing
machines, but to abandon his attempts at physicotheology; the latter is, 
in effect, the gist of my present advice to the AI researchers.


'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139                                     :
: (617) 661-8151                                                     :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'


