Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!tank!uwvax!uwslh!lishka From: lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Fish-Guts) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Limits of AI Message-ID: <397@uwslh.UUCP> Date: 31 Oct 88 15:10:10 GMT References: <1651@ndsuvax.UUCP> Reply-To: lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Fish-Guts) Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison, State Hygiene Lab Lines: 48 In article <1651@ndsuvax.UUCP> ncthangi@ndsuvax.UUCP (sam r. thangiah ) writes: > >One of the students in my class raised a point that: >"Man is not capable of producing a machine that is more intelligent than >oneself". Is this a valid statement? Unfortunately you will need to define some of the terms better. The key to all of this is probably what your student or you mean by someone (or something) being "intelligent." Indeed, this seems (in my mind) to be one of the key questions in Artificial Intelligence. Another term you may need to define more rigidly is "machine." In my opinion, even if one defines the terms, the real answer to this question lies in one's foundations of morals, beliefs, and religions. Scientists may come out and "prove" or "disprove" the above statement, but many of the assumptions they will use will be very basic ones which others (specifically non-scientists) do not believe. For those others, the scientific proof may be meaningless. >I really do not know if this has been debated, but it does tell us the limits >of achievements that can be attained by AI or does it ? One answer does occur to me: yes, men and women *can* produce machines that are more intelligent than themselves. The phenomena is called "birth," and in this case you would need to accept the term "man" as meaning men and women at least through the past 2000 years, "machine" as possibly meaning human beings (i.e. the human mechanism as a machine), and agree that men and women have generally become more intelligent over the past 2000 years (note that it is probably *not* necessary to pin down the exact meaning of "intelligence" in this case). Also, one would need to believe that "sexual reproduction" is a valid means of "creation" in this case. The above are just my opinions. Realize that I am just an undergraduate who has taken a fairly respectable set of AI courses at the University of Wisconsin (more than the typical undergraduate in AI), and who comes from a family that was into Eastern Religions. >Sam .oO Chris Oo. -- Christopher Lishka ...!{rutgers|ucbvax|...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene lishka%uwslh.uucp@cs.wisc.edu Immunology Section (608)262-1617 lishka@uwslh.uucp ---- "...Just because someone is shy and gets straight A's does not mean they won't put wads of gum in your arm pits." - Lynda Barry, "Ernie Pook's Commeek: Gum of Mystery"