Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!hci!gilbert
From: gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Success of AI
Message-ID: <132@glenlivet.hci.hw.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23-Oct-87 12:22:45 EST
Article-I.D.: glenlive.132
Posted: Fri Oct 23 12:22:45 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Oct-87 01:06:32 EST
References: <193@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Reply-To: gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Scottish HCI Centre
Lines: 47

In article <193@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> spe@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Sean Engelson) writes:
>Given a sufficiently powerful computer, I could, in theory, simulate
>the human body and brain to any desired degree of accuracy.  This
>gedanken-experiment

keinen gedanken mein Herr!

In **WHICH THEORY**? Cut out this use of theoretical to mean "given
arbitrary fantasies".  Theories have real substance, and you are
obliged to elaborate on the theory before alluding to it.

Given a sufficiently powerful computer, could I, in theory, get
everyone on the net to like my postings? Rhetorical of course, so spare
me any abusive replies :-). The point again, is that I would have to
elaborate the theory and test it out to be sure. Furthermore, I could
not expect everyone to be convinced, that in the event of highly
unlikely (impossible I believe) universal acceptance of my postings,
that my theory really was the explanation.  In short, even if one dropped
fantasy for science, people in general are not going to be convinced.

> if I can simulate the body in a computer, the computer is a
> sufficiently powerful model of computation to model the mind.

Of course. Now simulate it. And of course, you won't be slowed down by reading
up on all the unanswered objections to the **belief** that computable formalisms
can model mind. In short, this is no contribution to the argument.

>we must also accept that a computer can have a mind, if only by the
>inefficient expedient of simulating a body containing a mind.

Ahem. Socialisation.

AI people rarely have a handle on this at all. I take it that your
computer simulation of the body is going to go down to the park with
you to see the ducks, go down to playgroup, start primary school and
work through to a degree, mixing all the time with a wide range of
people, reading books, watching TV and visiting interesting places?

Look, people are people because they interact as people with people.
Now, who's going to want to interact with your computer as if it were
a person?

Need I go on?
-- 
   Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Ben Line Building, Edinburgh, EH1 1TN
   JANET:  gilbert@uk.ac.hw.hci    ARPA:   gilbert%hci.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
		UUCP:	..{backbone}!mcvax!ukc!hwcs!hci!gilbert