Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: ReProgrammed Cockton
Message-ID: <2615@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>
Date: 31 Mar 89 19:54:31 GMT
References: <1127@novavax.UUCP> <20900003@bradley> <1138@novavax.UUCP> <2702@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 36

In article <2702@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
>
>On the contrary, sound arguments against the validity of astrology can
>be constructed on epistemelogical grounds alone.  The same is true of
>AI.  The question is, can computers be programmed to be valid models of
>some woolly construct called 'Mind' (what the hell is mind?)?  This
>question can be addressed competently without reference to any program
>constructed within the last 30 years of AI. 

Actually, I agree with you here.  More basic than the question that any
particular program addresses is the question of whether the mind is
grounded in a purely physical entity (the brain) or not.  You indicate
not.  If you are wrong, then the only argument is whether the AI
researchers are on the right track in trying to replicate/simulate
brain function or not.  If you are right, then the question is what
is the mind that an artificial brain can not contain it or acquire it.
I find your answer "socialization" inadequate, because if I could make
a android that appeared to be a human child and grew and had an adequately
functioning brain, why couldn't it be socialized as well as a real child,
(a la the replicant in "Bladerunner" who didn't even know she wasn't
human).
>
>It is not for humanity to learn of AI, but for AI to learn of
>humanity.  This unfortunately includes all that turgid Euro-rubbish
>which Maddox tries to lampoon.  After all, it's as much his
>intellectual heritage as mine.

Well, Gilbert, I'm glad you finally acknowledged our common
cultural roots.  After all, our cultures were divided only in the
last 400 years, whereas that of Britain and the rest of Europe
were sundered from 1 to 3 millenia ago.  Perhaps with the "United
States of Europe" concept, this will change over the next few
decades, but it hasn't happened yet.  In fact, one could argue
that the cultures of non-Anglic European countries (especially the young
people) have picked up far more transculturation from America than
Britain.