From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!orca!javelin.sim.es.com!biesel Wed Apr 22 12:04:12 EDT 1992
Article 5160 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!orca!javelin.sim.es.com!biesel
>From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence, awareness, and esthetics
Message-ID: <1992Apr20.233507.1162@javelin.sim.es.com>
Date: 20 Apr 92 23:35:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: javelin.1992Apr20.233507.1162
References: <1992Apr20.191345.27706@javelin.sim.es.com> <1992Apr20.204409.15218@sophia.smith.edu>
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Lines: 31

orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:

>In article <1992Apr20.191345.27706@javelin.sim.es.com> 
>	biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:

> >This suggests an alternative to the Turing test: a computer can be
> >said to exhibit human intelligence and awareness if it is capable of
> >producing a work of art which finds both wide acceptance among art
> >lovers, and is indistinguishable from similar pieces or art produced
> >by human artists.

>I see no reason to expect computers to exhibit *human* intelligence 
>and awareness, especially if measured by producing art that humans
>appreciate.  The best art distills distinctly human experiences in a form
>that speaks directly to humans.  I find it hard to imagine computers
>producing truly original human-art without having human experiences 
>to draw upon:  having parents, growing up, dating in high school, having 
>children, etc.  It seems more likely that computers will create art 
>that other computers can best appreciate, perhaps art that ONLY other
>computers can appreciate.

Perhaps so; and, if so, we are the poorer for it. In what sense can such
a computer be said to be intelligent, or to be self-aware? How, but by 
direct and relevant comparison with our own limited capabilities, can
we infer either? 

Or, to put a slighly different spin upon it: if it's so smart, how
come it can't produce a work of art I like?

Regards,
       Heiner biesel@thrall.sim.es.com


