Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!news.ucdavis.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: FIRST order?
Message-ID: <jqbDBpCx1.o5@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3t7fgv$rt9@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk> <3t8iii$ur8@saba.info.ucla.edu> <3tqkvc$bh@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk> <3u3luh$a56@saba.info.ucla.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 10:53:24 GMT
Lines: 49
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:31521 comp.ai.philosophy:30140 sci.logic:12360 sci.cognitive:8302

In article <3u3luh$a56@saba.info.ucla.edu>,
Michael Zeleny <zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>I take Penrose's argument as a qualified success.  To date, I am fully
>satisfied with weemba's vigorous defense thereof.

Are you characterizing a lot of emotional ranting filled with terms like
"moron" and "retard" as a "vigorous defense"?  By on the one hand championing
Wiener's insults (I refer to an earlier post in which you praised them as a
contribution to this forum) and on the other hand railing against
"vituperation and obloquy" (which, you suggested, were qualities of those
same people who benefit by proxy from the research of their neighbors, an
interesting excuse for an occasion of intellectual stinginess; I suspect that
you had other reasons for not honoring the request), you undermine your own
intellectual integrity.

>None of it has been shown.  The classification is undertaken by the
>programmer.  The performance of tasks is undertaken by the operator.
>The goals adopted by the machine are implicit in its design.  And its
>solutions will not surprise anyone thoroughly acquainted with its
>programming.  You have said or done nothing to block this analysis.

Samuel claimed long ago to have been surprised by the solutions arrived at by
his checkers program, which played much better than he.  Unless you want to
argue that he was so thoroughly acquainted with its programming that he
shouldn't have been surprised by its ability to surprise him.  One could
likewise argue that people's solutions should not surprise anyone thoroughly
acquainted with their biology.  After all, humans are not imbued with autonomy
simply because we say so (no magical factive quality of language, and all
that).  Perhaps more forceful is weemba's dismissal of "finite trash"; at
least that objection isn't countered by well-known factual examples.

>Your interested audience is too full of true believers for my taste.  I
>read this thread on sci.logic, where a more balanced attitude prevails.

Modern journalism would seek balance between Hitler and Mother Theresa.  If
you believe that there is a fact of the matter, "balance" is hardly what you
should be seeking.

>The engineering point of view may be important in practice, but it will
>never make up for theoretical shortcomings.  The slide rule and the file
>cabinet can be readily augmented by Rube Goldberg-like devices meant to
>automate their function.  It is your job to specify at which point of
>such mechanical enhancement the humble appliances would acquire mental
>properties.

This strikes as a fallacy of the beard.
-- 
<J Q B>

