Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!caen!umich!sharkey!tygra!dave
From: dave@tygra.Michigan.COM (David Conrad)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: THE I OF THE BEHOLDER
Message-ID: <1991Jun19.110450.5342@tygra.Michigan.COM>
Date: 19 Jun 91 11:04:50 GMT
References: <9106140011.AA14996@lilac.berkeley.edu> <1991Jun14.153701.842@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing System, Detroit, MI
Lines: 44

In article <1991Jun14.153701.842@cs.yale.edu> mcdermott-drew@cs.yale.edu (Drew McDermott) writes:
>
>The problem is this: It's now becoming clear that the self is a
>construct of the brain.  [Okay, clear to a handful of computationally
>enlightend people.]  Hence the sentence "I can attribute existence to
>myself," actualy means that "the brain can attribute existence to
>its 'self' ".  But deciding that the brain itself exists is not
>addressed by this formula.
No, it isn't, but so what?  What is most important, it seems to me, is that
an intelligent agent can achieve its goals without being able to prove that
anything, *not even the hardware on which it is implemented*, exists.  I can
think (I'm actually doing it right now!) without being able to *prove* that
my brain exists.  This is no obstacle.  The question for AI seems to be:
"Does an agent which 'believes' in objects, observers, etc. work 'better'
than a solipsistic one?  Does it 'learn' faster?  Can it do more?"  This,
I will admit, is out of my league.

>The puzzle
>is to find the systems in a universe of constantly moving quarks and
>leptons.  It won't do to say "Find an observer and let it find the
>systems," because the observers are just systems themselves.
>
Is this puzzle merely one of philosophy?  I cannot see why it is necessary
for us to solve the ultimate question of "Life, the Universe, and Everything"
before we can succeed with AI.  (The answer, by the way, is 42.)

>I disagree completely with this idea.  The machines may someday arrive
>at a solipsistic position, but if so, it will be false, as we can see
>when we start to build them.
>

If you have a disproof of Solipsism, I'm waiting with baited breath.  If you
simply mean that I know that the machine isn't the one true observer because
I know that I myself am also an observer, this is no more help to the machine
than you telling me that you really exist helps me to dispell my own
solipsistic feelings.

David R. Conrad
dave@michigan.com
-- 
=  CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Computer Conferencing and File Archive  =
-  1-313-343-0800, 300/1200/2400/9600 baud, 8/N/1. New users use 'new'    - 
=  as a login id.  AVAILABLE VIA PC-PURSUIT!!! (City code "MIDET")        =
   E-MAIL Address: dave@Michigan.COM