Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence
Message-ID: <1904@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>
Date: 22 Dec 88 15:26:36 GMT
References: <4040a289.9d8d@hi-csc.UUCP> <4639@homxc.UUCP>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 25

In article <4639@homxc.UUCP> marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) writes:
>
>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.
>
>Two points in the preceding statements are worth noting:
>
>First, the philosophical bases are diametrically opposite.
>
>Second, the conclusions are totally consistent and cannot be
>distinguished by observation.
>

Perhaps I can agree with your first statement but not your second.
If indeed an artificial intelligence is created, that action will
negate the premise.  Almost all unknown phenomena were initially given 
supernatural explanations.  The history of science traces out a point by point
collapse of such notions (although there are still stragglers
who refuse to give up even the notion of the flat earth).  I feel that
it would be better if people would avoid staking their religious beliefs
on such questions, but I am sure religion will survive the creation
of artificial persons.  Wouldn't it be interesting if these artificial
persons were also religious?  (Maybe I'll write a SF story abou this.)