Xref: utzoo comp.ai:3220 talk.religion.misc:10617
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!rutgers!att!whuts!homxb!genesis!hotlr!dave
From: dave@hotlr.ATT ( C D Druitt hotlk)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Elementary AI Philosophy
Keywords: Understanding and Comprehension, Reality and Modeling
Message-ID: <526@hotlr.ATT>
Date: 26 Jan 89 19:37:58 GMT
References: <18464@santra.UUCP> <1241@arctic.nprdc.arpa> <904@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <9423@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <43763@linus.UUCP> <9465@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: dave@hotlr.UUCP (54246 - C D Druitt hotlk)
Organization: AT&T-BL Holmdel NJ - Lab 5431
Lines: 54

In article <9465@ihlpb.ATT.COM> arm@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Macalalad,A.R.) writes:
 > In article <43763@linus.UUCP> Barry Kort writes:
 > >There *can* be "something inside the computer that `understands'",
 > >but that something need not be thought of as a "homunculus".
 (Occam was here) 
 > Barry, I'm not sure what this has to do with homunculi.  Who is
 > about things-in-themselves.  If by saying that theories are the
 > product of noumenal thought, you imply that I can never fully
 > understand your theory, then you may be right. (:-)
 > My point (just in case you missed it the first time) was to argue
 > that Searle's man inside the computer was essentially a homunculus.
 > Further, when Searle assumes that the computer understands Chinese
 > only if the man inside the computer understands Chinese, he implies
 > that we must have a similar little man inside our heads in order for
 > us to understand.  Finally, since most of us agree that none of us
 > need a little man inside our head in order to understand, Searle's
 > assumption that a computer _does_ can easily be seen as fallacious.
 (Occam was here, too! 8-)) 
 > As to my comment that the computer system as a whole understands, I
 > meant that understanding was an emergent property of the computer
 > system.  (Sort of like the way enclosure is an emergent property
 > of a box.  Does the property of enclosure lie within the top? the
 > bottom? the sides?  It emerges from the way the top, bottom and
 > sides are put together to form a box.)
 > 
 > Something to think about....
 > 
 > -Alex
After a few seconds of good, hard, thought, I am left feeling like
a minority. You see, I think the little man in our heads _IS_ there!
And WE ARE HIM!
Maybe the disagreement is more one of abstract semanticism (;-):
Just as enclosure requires conjugal relationships between the elements
of the box (though a box is only a small sample of the groups that
give rise the concept of enclosure) to give it it's emergent property,
the "little man" is made up of - what?
Isn't _he_ simply _you_ or _me_? Aren't we our own little men in our
heads?
The working collaboration of the substructures into a superstructure
with a controller (or little man) to make choices and decisions
is something that occurs in nature to an infinite degree and on
infinite levels. Isn't a corporation a living organism? A city? A country?
Any assumption that _most of us_ (four-out-of five politicians surveyed?)
agreeing on some thought means that we understand it, or that any
dissenter is easily seen to be fallacious, is necessarily fallacious.

(sorry to get upset about this - I like the little man!
 I think he's a very useful and worthwhile concept to explore!)

Dave DRuitt
(the NODES)
(201) 949-5898

("what you need, son, is a little exposure to full frontal nodity (sic)")