Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU!brothers
From: brothers@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: Submission for mod-ai
Message-ID: <8702142157.AA21018@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sat, 14-Feb-87 16:57:45 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.8702142157.AA21018
Posted: Sat Feb 14 16:57:45 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Feb-87 15:36:24 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 59
Approved: ailist@sri-stripe.arpa

Path: topaz!brothers
From: brothers@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Laurence R. Brothers)
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: Re: Other Minds
Message-ID: <9245@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: 14 Feb 87 21:57:45 GMT
References: <8702132202.AA01947@BOEING.COM>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 49

So...? I think you've basically restated a number of properties of
intelligence which AI researchers have been exploring for some time,
with varying degrees of success. 

There are two REAL reasons why you can't build an "intelligent"
machine today: 

1) Since no one really knows how people think, we can't build machines
which accurately model ourselves.

2) Current machines do not have anything like the kind of computing
power necessary for intelligence.

Ray@Boeing says:
>Manipulation of symbols is insufficient by itself to duplicate human
>performance; it is necessary to treat the perceptions and experiences the
>symbols *symbolize*.  Put a symbol for red and a symbol for blue in a pot,
>and stir as you will, there will be no trace of magenta.

Look, manipulation of symbols by a program is analogical with
manipulation of neural impulses by a brain. When you reduce far
enough, EVERYTHING is typographical/syntactical. The neat thing about
brains is that they manipulate so MANY symbols at once. 

General arguments against standard AI techniques are all well and good
(viz. Hofstadter's position), but keep in mind that while mainstream
AI has not produced so much wonderful stuff, the old neural-net
research was even less impressive. 

My own view regarding true machine intelligence is that there is no
particular reason why it's not theoretically possible, but given
an "intelligent" machine, one should not expect it to be able to
do anything weird like passing a Turing Test. The hypothetical
intelligent machine won't be anything like a human -- different
architecture, different i/o bandwidths, different physical
manifestation, so it is philosophically deviant to expect it
to emulate a human.

Anyhow, as a putative AI researcher (so I'm only 1st year, so sue me),
it seems to me that decades of work have to be done on both hardware
and cognitive modeling before we can even set our sights on
HAL-9000.... Give me another ring when those terabyte RAM, femtosecond
CAML cycle optical computers come out -- until then the entire
discussion is numinous....
-- 
			 Laurence R. Brothers
		      brothers@topaz.rutgers.edu
    {harvard,seismo,ut-sally,sri-iu,ihnp4!packard}!topaz!brothers
	    "The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades!"