Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!violet.waterloo.edu!cpshelley From: cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu (cameron shelley) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: forwarded post Message-ID: <1990Nov5.181355.24990@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Date: 5 Nov 90 18:13:55 GMT Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes) Organization: University of Waterloo Lines: 96 The following is a post forwarded by me for Stephen Miller at NASA whose system seems to have posting trouble. Please direct responses to him at the address below... From smiller@aio.jsc.nasa.gov Mon Nov 5 11:48:14 1990 Received: from aio.jsc.nasa.gov by violet.waterloo.edu with SMTP id ; Mon, 5 Nov 90 11:48:14 EST Received: by aio (5.57/Ultrix2.4-C) id AA07923; Mon, 5 Nov 90 10:46:29 CST Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 10:46:29 CST From: smiller@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (Stephen Miller) Message-Id: <9011051646.AA07923@aio> To: cpshelley@violet Status: R To: eos!shelby!agate!apple!usc!wuarchive!uunet!ogicse!pdxgate!eecs!erich Subject: Re: Split from AI/CogSci... misc. comments Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy In-Reply-To: <497@pdxgate.UUCP> Organization: NASA JSC Houston, TX Cc: Bcc: In article <497@pdxgate.UUCP> you write: > > After a little more thought on the topic of the last article, It comes >to me that several comments that I made states part of my argument more >eloquently. > > (I had noted how our concepts differentiate as we learn a topic, and >given an example of my own concept differentiation in "AI") > > Our own preoccupation with the messy concepts of "conciousness", and even >"intelligence" are a testament to our own naivete in a way. We are learning >more and more that although some principle issues that get people interested >in a field are interesting, they end up becoming sort of moot questions as >the field matures and *better* questions are dicovered. I think that this >consideration would be valid here as well in the argument to give "AI" its >own language. > > Later, > Erich > > / Erich Stefan Boleyn Internet E-mail: \ >>--={ Portland State University Honorary Graduate Student (Math) }=--< > \ College of Liberal Arts & Sciences *Mad Genius wanna-be* / > "I haven't lost my mind; I know exactly where I left it." my response: let's take an elementary spelling course: original (there were some others, too.) (it causes loss of credibility...) content: i like it, however, do you think there is an emotional/instinctive element in perceiving concsiousness in another entity? certainly our need (emotional, instinctive, whatever type) has something to do w/it. i for one think a lot will come to light when the first generation of babies grows up w/intelligent-acting computer/robot systems freely available. that is, when these systems are in the nuturing environment such as at home and at day school. will the children grow up considering "robbie" to be a companion and playmate, a significant other persona? or will the children say "oh, it's just the computer", and not become attached to it as they do to their human friends and playmates? ...will there be an emotive element? if there is, will the children think the systems conscious? i think it is a tremendously complex question, this one about machine consciousness, and a tremendously important one. it has bearing on all kinds of ethical and moral issues, not to mention many different branches of scientific inquiry. like all inquiry, and revolutionary scientific (or other) thought and ideas, it will take both completely NEW ways of looking at things (witness Heisenberg, Einstein, Darwin,...) and more than one person brave enough to think these new things/ways, and (lastly) time. revolutionary ideas neither form nor become accepted overnight. i maintain what we are witnessing and contributing to is a completely new way of conceiving (for western man, at least) of our selves, our machines and technologies, and our other things in our universe; i.e. other intell- igences, including not only computer ones but also nonterrestrial ones such as ocean-going mammals, other life forms on earth, and extra-terrestrials. i think it is a fundamental revolution in the way we conceive of ourselves and our place in the universe. all the evidence points to this conclusion. we are consistently encountering multiple levels of reality in particle physics, cognition, astronomy, computer science, bioengineering. the same thing happens if one reads cultural philosophies from a variety of nonwestern and western cultures. ...enough for now. i welcome comments and responses. .steve. -- Cameron Shelley | "Fidelity, n. A virtue peculiar to those cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu| who are about to be betrayed." Davis Centre Rm 2136 | Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390 | Ambrose Bierce