Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ncar!ames!oliveb!pyramid!prls!philabs!gcm!dc
From: dc@gcm (Dave Caswell)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence
Message-ID: <648@white.gcm>
Date: 19 Dec 88 01:49:11 GMT
References: <4040a289.9d8d@hi-csc.UUCP> <4639@homxc.UUCP>
Reply-To: dc@white.UUCP (Dave Caswell)
Organization: Greenwich Capital Markets, Greenwich, CT
Lines: 25

In article <4639@homxc.UUCP> marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) writes:

(ONE)
.It is a matter of faith to some that the activities of living beings
.are produced by the interaction of objectively detectable matter and
.energy, and therefore technology can come progressively closer to
.understanding and reproducing them.
 
(TWO)
.It is a matter of faith to others that the same activities of living
.beings depend on something that is not explainable by the interaction
.of objectively detectable matter and energy, and therefore technology
.will always fall short of understanding and reproducing them.

Is it safe to say that the people who don't think there is any faith
involved in believing (ONE) think that it is at least possible we
shall someday attain machine intelligence?  Is there any reason to
think that believing in (ONE) is an "act of faith"?  Is there any
reason to believe in (TWO) except faith?  My mind is made up; I
wouldn't have used the words "a matter of faith" in (ONE).


-- 
Dave Caswell
Greenwich Capital Markets                             uunet!philabs!gcm!dc