Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2710 talk.philosophy.misc:1627
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!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: <1816@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>
Date: 27 Nov 88 17:18:45 GMT
References: <484@soleil.UUCP> <1654@hp-sdd.HP.COM> <1908@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <1791@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> <819@novavax.UUCP> <1976@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 55

In article <1976@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
>
>   Intelligence can only be acquired in social situations, since its
>   presence is only acknowledged in social situations. 

If a tree falls in the woods and nothing with ears is around, does
it make a sound?  I think it is imaginable that there could be
in this universe solitary entities that "think".  The social
definition of intelligence might also lead to making the mistake
of attributing intelligence to natural processes which (at least
by current definitions) are not, e.g. theories that planets
hold their orbits voluntarily in response to God's law, which 
were at one time common.

>   AI cannot prove anything here.  It can try to convince (but doesn't
>   because of a plague of mutes), but the judgement is with the wider
>   public, not the self-satisfied insiders.
>

AI will not convince except with results.  The proof of the pudding
is in the eating.  So far there has been too much talking and too
little results.  As for the value of HCI endeavors, the same applies
there.  We'll see how much the eclectic nature of this effort pays
off by the hard results, won't we?
>
>Not completely jokingly, just a less direct European style. 
..
>I'll try to sum up in a more direct manner for SAT level literacy :-)
>(but really, it's a question of styles across cultures, which is
>ironic, for those cultures which understand irony that is!)
..
>in the face of cruel oppression, e.g. U.S. slavery), 

Your not so subtle needling of Americans would seem less
hypocritical if it originated in a country (and continent)
whose own hands were cleaner.

>further proof that a mechanistic or biological account of being is
>going to miss out on the fundamentals of being.
>
I agree that socialization of the machine is probably going to be
needed to create anything that we might recognize as an artificial
person.  But can you talk about what the fundamentals of being
are and what denies them to even the most complex artifact (other than
feeding the ducks)?  Is this some supernatural notion, or is
it the result of evolution, or culture, or some other natural process?

>>   Why, it'd be like shooting ducks in a pond... :-)
>And I don't think for one minute your machine you reflect on the
>morality of its action, as a group of children would. (no :-))
>
Depends entirely what the children have been taught.  There are
lots of children who wouldn't reflect on the morality of such actions.
Conversely, the program could well be made to reflect on such moral
issues.