Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!hc!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!htsa!fransvo From: fransvo@htsa.uucp (Frans van Otten) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Where might CR understanding come from (if it exists) Message-ID: <813@htsa.uucp> Date: 30 Mar 89 11:30:20 GMT References: <2691@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Organization: AHA-TMF (Technical Institute), Amsterdam, Netherlands Lines: 68 Gilbert Cockton writes: >In article <4506@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@agarn.dg.com (Wayne A. Throop) writes: >>I'm not willing to make it easy either. The commotion is over just >>what constitutes "relevant causes". I simply do not think that the >>human brain has any mysterious "causal powers" that a computer >>executing a suitable program does not. [...] >For one, human minds are not artefacts, whereas computer programs >always will be. This alone will ALWAYS result in performance >differences. Given a well-understood task, computer programs will >out-perform humans. Given a poorly understood task, they will look >almost as silly as the author of the abortive program. This discussion has degraded into a fight between two groups with different viewpoints: 1. Humans have some mysterious powers that are responsible for their having a mind. Animals might also have these powers, maybe even martians. This property might be inherent to the building material; carbon-hydrogen has it, Si doesn't. 2. Understanding etc. are properties which arise from a certain way to process information. The information theory is what matters, not the way it is implemented. If we humans can do it using our hardware (neurons etc), then computers are able to do this using theirs. I believe that those who support 1. are in an ideological grippe. This is an unsupported way of looking at things. If these people might think they could find support in religions, I have to dissapoint them. In no religion known to me it is stated that the mind/spirit/... (the non-physical thing) is dependent (in its being) on its body (the physical thing). This includes religions ranging from Christianity to Bhuddism, Zen and Sufi. There is not either any support for this viewpoint from the technological world. There is no apparent chemical reason why carbon-hydrogene molecular groups can and Si-molecules can not give rise to something as high-level as understanding and consciousness. So I think these people are stuck somewhere between a "rational" and a "not-rational" (emotional/...) viewpoint, but are too lazy to really think about the issue. When they join a discussion, it becomes a mess. My personal opinion on this is as follows. In the evolutionary process, with "survival of the fittest", you have to behave in such a way that you will survive long enough to raise a new generation. As the level of complexity of the organism increases, it will have to do more "information processing": to find food, to protect against enemies, etc. My point: intelligence etc. developed out of a need to determine how to behave in order to survive. So the behaviourist approach is justified: "when the system seems to act intelligently, it *is* intelligent". Then we invented the computer. We start wondering: can we make this machine intelligent ? Before we can write a program for this, we must understand the algorithm humans use. This proves to be very difficult. Research is hindered by people claiming that understanding requires very mysterious causal powers which computers, due to their design, can never have. Gilbert Cockton even claims that because human minds are not artifacts, while computer systems always will be, there will always be performance differences. Apart from the fact that this statement is nonsense, it is not of any importance to AI-research. -- Frans van Otten Algemene Hogeschool Amsterdam Technische en Maritieme Faculteit fransvo@htsa.uucp