Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov!ipsun.larc.nasa.gov!jcburt From: jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: Thinking Machines Message-ID: <1990Nov30.145228.21484@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov> Date: 30 Nov 90 14:52:28 GMT References: <9^}^-!+@rpi.edu> Sender: news@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov (USENET File Owner) Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Lines: 55 In article <9^}^-!+@rpi.edu> lunwic@aix03.aix.rpi.edu (Jeffrey G Lunn) writes: > > This is a subject that I have been thinking a lot about in the last >couple of weeks. We discussed it in one of my classes and it prompted me to >write a paper about it. Suppose that one day we are capable of constructing >computers that are able to think - that is, think in the sense that you or I >do. They would be able to look at any problem, formulate a hypothesis about >how to go about solving that problem, then think through the steps necessary >to come up with a solution. If no logical solution is apparent, this computer >would perform an educated guess based intuitively on what it "felt" is the >correct solution, much like humans do in similar situations. My question is, >should we let such thinking machines exist? I feel that people would be too >tempted to let such machines take over previously human thinking tasks such >as figuring out difficult mathematical problems or searching for new elementary >physics particles or even writing poetry. It is possible that by letting >machines do the cerebral work, the collective human mind would stagnate from >lack of meaningful stimulation. Then humans would live for nothing but to >survive and to be as comfortable as possible. I do not consider this a >meaningful way of life. What do others think? Can mankind develop such >machines without sacrificing their drive for mental stimulation? Or would >the situation that I described occur? > - Jeff Lunn Actually, the questions you ask are more in line with philosophy more than anything else...a good thought provoking book that obliquely touches on this is "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstader (sp???). When you say a "thinking" machine, are you just concerned with the logical process of 1) identifying a problem and 2) coming up with possible solutions ? If this is the scope, then these machines if not available currently will be available in the next few years. On the other hand if by "thinking" you actually mean a machine that has the above AND somehow has the creativity, intuition, inspiration, imagination etc that sets man apart, then that is debatable. The next question is "would such a machine be *concious* ?" Assuming man is concious and a rock is not, what defines conciouness in a machine? (try defining conciousness in the animal world - where on the scale of brain complexity does conciousness begin? an ameoba? a spider? a worm? a rat? a dog? a whale? man?). There have been many science fiction stories written on the topic of a "thinking" machine. Star Trek: The Next Generation is a prime example (Data), "When Harlie Was One" (i forget the author), Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", Isaac Asimov's robot series ("Caves of Steel", "I, Robot", etc - I forget the titles but there are several more) to name just a few. One point brought up is the logic circuits involved, would simple binary (on/off) logic (as is used in the majority of computers today) be sufficient, or would multi-level (on/mostly on/equal/mostly off/off) be required. Where is the starting point for such a machine - emulate a human brain down to neural pathways? how complex would such a machine have to be before it could become concious. In more general terms, is it possible for man to create something as complex (if not more so) than himself ? I don't know... Is it advisable? probably not since such a machine eventually might be considered a "god"... John (jcburt@cs.wm.edu)