Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsm!channic
From: channic@uiucdcsm.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free Will
Message-ID: <3200014@uiucdcsm>
Date: 18 Apr 88 19:32:00 GMT
References: <4134@super.upenn.edu>
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #R:super.upenn.edu:4134:uiucdcsm:3200014:000:1011
Nf-From: uiucdcsm.cs.uiuc.edu!channic    Apr 18 13:32:00 1988


I can't justify the proposition that scientific endeavors grouped
under the name "AI" SHOULD NOT IGNORE issues of free wil, mind-brain,
other minds, etc.  If these issues are ignored, however, I would
strongly oppose the use of "intelligence" as being descriptive
of the work.  Is it fair to claim work in that direction when
fundamental issues regarding such a goal are unresolved (if not
unresolvable)?  If this is the name of the field, shouldn't the
field at least be able to define what it is working towards? 
I personally cannot talk about intelligence without concepts such
as mind, thoughts, free will, consciousness, etc.  If we, as AI
researchers make no progress whatsoever in clarifying these issues,
then we should at least be honest with ourselves and society, and find a
new title for our efforts.  Actually the slight modification,
"Not Really Intelligence" would be more than suitable.


Tom Channic
Dept. of CS
Univ. of Illinois
channic@uiucdcs.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4|decvax}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!channic