Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!seismo!caip!pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: love to a philosopher
Message-ID: <11700389@inmet>
Date: Tue, 9-Sep-86 22:34:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.11700389
Posted: Tue Sep  9 22:34:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Sep-86 03:07:50 EDT
References: <789@sunybcs.UUCP>
Lines: 51
Nf-ID: #R:sunybcs.UUCP:-78900:inmet:11700389:000:2056
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Sep  9 22:34:00 1986


[colonel@sunybcs.UUCP ]
>> >Besides, ideas have nothing to do with it; even an amoeba can love.

>> I confess I can't really empathize with an amoeba; but
>> it seems no harder to ascribe ideas to it than love.

>This sounds like an echo of Jennings's:  "If Amoeba were the size of a
>dog, instead of being microscopic, no one would deny to its actions the
>name of intelligence."

>But ideas are abstractions, and I doubt that amoebas need to abstract.
>Intelligence isn't necessarily abstract or symbolic.

Ideas are abstract in different degree. The rudiments of intelligence
existing in an amoeba may not deserve the name of ideas;  but  
do its rudiments of emotion deserve names such as love?

>> Can ideas and emotions be fully separated?
>> If AI ever succeeds in passing the Turing test, won't  it
>> necessarily include AE as well ?

>One of the classical objections to the Turing test is that it limits
>communication to a tty.  I foresee difficulties in expressing emotion
>at 1200 baud ...

Ever read the late net.flame? Or, for that matter, the extant groups?

>Besides, computer hugs just don't feel right.  What would we use AE
>_for?_

They could hug each other, and we could watch and  laugh...  Peo-
ple try to make computers compose music, poetry and graphic art -
all three can be emotional. I am not, BTW, predicting success - I
am  just  saying  IF a program passed the Turing test, it would
have to pass it emotionally, as well as rationally. That is,  its
answers  to emotion-provoking remarks would have to imitate, suc-
cessfully, human emotion - or else it would be found out.

You might say it doesn't *really* feel the emotion - but the
same objection is made about its thinking. Your implied objection
is that emotion is not expressed in words alone - but neither is
intelligence. Remember Charles,
         " our noble king,
         Whose word no man relies on.
         He never said a foolish thing,
         And never did a wise one" ?

The Imitation Game is crooked, but it's the only game in town...

		Jan Wasilewsky