Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2702 talk.philosophy.misc:1618
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence
Message-ID: <1806@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>
Date: 24 Nov 88 18:50:57 GMT
References: <484@soleil.UUCP> <1654@hp-sdd.HP.COM> <1908@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <1791@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> <1918@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 22

In article <1918@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
>Cos you can't take a computer, not even the just truly awesomest
>nooral network ever, to see the ducks, get it to throw them bread,
>etc, etc.
>
>Take a walk through your life.  Can you really see a machine going
>through that with an identical outcome?  If so, lay off the cyberpunk
>and get some fresh air with some good folk :-)
>
I agree that we aren't nearly advanced enough to see our way through
to making a robot capable of "acting human", but why do you think
that this is impossible?  (For now let's not assume I am saying that
we SHOULD try to make a mechanical human, that's another question.)
Did we not become what we are through a
natural and (at least potentially) comprehensible process?  Then
could we not be functionally duplicated, given sufficient knowledge?
It isn't like we were talking about exceeding
the speed of light or making time run backwards.  Or is it?  I wish
I could get you to say why you really don't believe it is possible.
Or do you think we are just dumb American "techies" who wouldn't be
able to understand your learned discourse?  (If Decartes answered
this to your satisfactorily, pray give us the reference, then.)