Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!ll-xn!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!buffalo.CSNET!colonel
From: colonel@buffalo.CSNET ("Col. G. L. Sicherman")
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: Re: common sense
Message-ID: <8607181853.AA27956@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tue, 15-Jul-86 10:57:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8607181853.AA27956
Posted: Tue Jul 15 10:57:50 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jul-86 03:50:48 EDT
References: <860714-094227-1917@Xerox>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 24
Approved: ailist@sri-ai.arpa

In article <860714-094227-1917@Xerox>, Newman.pasa@XEROX.COM asks:
> 
> However, I think that my point still stands. Searle's argument seems to
> assume some "magical" property ... of biology that allows neurons ...
> to produce a phenomenon ...  that is not producible by other
> deterministic systems.
> 
> What is this strange feature of neurobiology?

I believe that the mysterious factor is not literally "magic" (in your
broad sense), but merely "invisible" to the classical scientific method.
A man's brain is very much an _interactive_ system.  It interacts con-
tinually with all of the world that it can sense.

On the other hand, laboratory experiments are designed to be closed
systems.  They are designed to be controllable; they rely on artificial
input, at least in the experimental stage.  (When they are used in the
field, they may be regarded as intelligent; even a door controlled by
an electric eye meets our intuitive criterion for intelligence.)

Just what do we demand of "artificial intelligence?" Opening doors
for us?  Writing music and poems for us?  Discoursing on philosophy
for us?  --Or doing things for _itself,_ and to Hell with humans?
I don't think that A.I. people agree about this.