Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: AI Message-ID: Date: 14 Nov 90 08:43:17 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Labs (Liberty Corner) Lines: 36 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Mike Gobbi wrote: >No matter how sophisticated programs and computers get, they will >never be conscious as we understand the term (I am a computer >science student and have studied this question in on of my courses, >so I am pretty confident in my statement). The programs will no >more have "morality" than does an animal trap. David Hollingsworth responded: Now that is a pretty strong statement. In fact, it is pretty mistaken. I really am not familiar with Rutgers CS program, but I am somewhat familiar with MIT's CS program, it includes/has included Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert, two rather big names in AI. (No, I'm not CS, I'm EE, so I'll have to paraphrase.) I agree with Mike Gobbi, as would anyone who knew just a little about Catholic theology -- and believed it -- but that's not what I want to get into. Great as some of the drivers behind AI might be, I think the ones that believe they can (in concept) duplicate a human being are completely mistaken. (Note that not all of them believe this. There was an interesting issue of Scientific American just recently that had articles addressing this subject.) Fundamentally, the mistake is in adopting materialism as a philosophical system. In seeing a human being as nothing more than a highly complex state machine (to use EE terminology). Materialism is but one philosophy. Unfortunately, great computer scientists are not necessarily great philosophers. If such men would stick to computer science they'd be great. But some of them wish to draw conclusions that are really outside their area of competence. Joe Buehler