Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!daemon
From: ISSSSM%NUSVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Stephen Smoliar)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: RE: THE I OF THE BEHOLDER
Message-ID: <25410@samsung.samsung.com>
Date: 14 Jun 91 00:15:03 GMT
Sender: daemon@samsung.COM
Lines: 79

In article <1991Jun13.163734.10165@cs.yale.edu> mcdermott-drew@cs.yale.edu
(Drew McDermott) writes:
>  In article <1991Jun12.232457.2962@news.media.mit.edu>
>  minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>  >Conversants never do, in
>  >fact, know that they are talking about the same things.  It is always
>  >a matter of convention, convergence, and good fortune -- even in the
>  >case of "mathematical truths".  When you and I both talk about "that
>  >chair over there", our internal models differ substantially, but not
>  >enough to make most practical interactions too difficult.  And the
>  >cchir itself changes imperceptibly from one moment to the next as it
>  >loses and gains atoms and suffers thermal agitations of its internal
>  >degrees of freedom.  There is no chair, indeed, from a modern physical
>  >point of view, only boundaries imposed by observers....
>
>Okay, but what about this objection: There are no observers, indeed,
>but only boundaries imposed by .... who??
>
>Why do we grant such rock-solid existence to observers and not to
>chairs?
>
>Surely we're not genuflecting toward the almighty self here?
>
>I think this is a genuine conundrum, but whatever solution we work out
>for explaining why people are objectively real will also work for
>chairs.  In any case it will not do to say that the reality of
>macroscopic objects is merely imposed by an observer, because the
>observer is itself just another macroscopic object.
>
Poor Descartes!  All that business about separating out mind and body has
really been taking quite a beating lately.  Now, just when you thought it
was safe to go into the philosophy library, here comes Drew ready to take
on the COGITO!  By the time we are all done with him, all Descartes will
have left to his name will be a few fragments of analytic geometry
(pathetically Euclidean, at that)!

However, if we can overcome our fear of solipsism (or at least Chris
Hutchison's fear), perhaps the COGITO is not quite as arbitrary as Drew's
accusation makes it out to be.  Ultimately, it all boils down to this question
of whether or not "genuflecting toward the almighty self" is nothing more than
blind faith.  After all, what the COGITO is basically saying is that because I
am exercising my "mental powers" (whatever they may be), I can attribute to
myself a "rock-solid existence" which I cannot attribute to that chair I
observe over there.

As I see it, here is where solipsism comes in the door to prop up the COGITO:
The question, as Drew formulated it, is quite appropriate.  Why should the
class of observers be any better off than the class of chairs?  The answer
provided by solipsism is that they are not any better off.  However, there
is ONE observer who IS better off;  and that is Drew's "almighty self."  The
solipsistic argument goes that the self is the ONLY observer that needs to be
taken into account.  Any other observers do, indeed, have the same status as
chairs:  They are all products of the interpretative process which constitutes
observation.  The COGITO then goes one step further by basically asserting
that the "self" behind that interpretative process is essentially an
emergent property of the process.

This is a bit convoluted and kind of heady.  It is probably better discussed in
a congenial bar over a few beers.  However, I do not see it as a patently silly
point of view which may impede our attempts to make progress in artificial
intelligence.  Minsky is quite right that we should "get on with the work
of making machines that can solve problems and communicate with one another
as best they can."  As we learn more about the technology of situated automata,
it becomes more and more feasible to think of building those machines on a
foundation of solipsism.  Indeed, from a point of view of sound engineering,
there may be no other viable way in which to build them.

===============================================================================

Stephen W. Smoliar
Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore
Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Kent Ridge
SINGAPORE 0511

BITNET:  ISSSSM@NUSVM

"He was of Lord Essex's opinion, 'rather to go an hundred miles to speak with
one wise man, than five miles to see a fair town.'"--Boswell on Johnson