Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5277 talk.philosophy.misc:3356 sci.philosophy.tech:1816
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!att!cbnewsh!mbb
From: mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Can Machines Think?
Message-ID: <6877@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>
Date: 23 Dec 89 16:46:27 GMT
References: <32029@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant,ho,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28

In article <32029@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>Chaos is only a problem if we need to model the behaviour of a particular
>system over a particular period of time exactly -- i.e., not just capture
>how it might go, but how it *does* go.  This isn't what we're trying to do
>in cognitive science, so it's not a problem.  We can model the system to
>a finite level of precision, and be confident that what we're missing is
>only random "noise."  .....

I second that.  The goal of AI is not to model a particular mind, but
to create a mind.  One thing we know from experience about minds -
which is reinforced by the argment based on chaos - is that two minds
never think exactly alike.

That would almost prove that if we modeled a given mind exactly, we
would NOT have created a mind, because a REAL mind never duplicates
another mind.  To prove we have created a mind, we have to have one
that does not exactly model another.

The chaos argument proves that if we create a mind, we will
automatically meet that requirement.  How fortunate!

M. B. Brilliant					Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520	(201) 949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733	att!hounx!marty1 or marty1@hounx.ATT.COM
After retirement on 12/30/89 use att!althea!marty or marty@althea.UUCP

Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer
	    explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.