Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5293 talk.philosophy.misc:3374 sci.philosophy.tech:1824
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!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: <6902@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>
Date: 27 Dec 89 22:56:37 GMT
References: <1037@ra.stsci.edu>
Reply-To: mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant,ho,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 67

In article <1037@ra.stsci.edu> bsimon@stsci.EDU (Bernie Simon) writes:
!I would like to make a few point that seem clear to me, but apparently
!aren't clear to others in this discussion.

Good thing to do.

!1) All physical objects are not machines. For example, stones, clouds,
!flowers, butterflies, and people are not machines...

Meaning that a machine has to be an artifact.  OK, people sometimes
call people machines to emphasize that people and machines are governed
by the same physics.  But saying that people are machines really begs
the question "Can machines think," doesn't it?

!2) Not all machines are computers. Lamps, screwdrivers, and cars are not
!computers.

OK.  But all computers are machines.  And a machine can contain a computer.

!3) There are some activities which can be performed by physical objects
!and machines which cannot be peformed by computers.  Birds can fly and
!airplanes can fly, but computers cannot fly...

!4) The simulation of a physical activity by a computer cannot be
!identified with the physical activity. A computer running a flight
!simulation program is not flying.

True.

!5) Hence, while it may be possible to build a machine that thinks, it
!does not follow that it will be possible to build a computer that
!thinks, as not all physical activities can be performed by computers.

We seem to have got off the track.  The question was not whether
computers can think, but whether machines can think.  If you put a
computer into a machine that can accept sensory input and create
motor output, it might be able to do what we call thinking.

!6) While there are good reasons to believe that thinking is a physical
!activity, there are no good reasons for believing that thinking is the
!execution of a computer program....

I wouldn't believe that for a minute.  I don't know exactly what
thinking is, but it is probably something a computer can't do alone,
but a machine with a computer in it might be able to do.

!.... Nothing revealed either through
!introspection or the examination of the anatomy of the brain leads to
!the conclusion that the brain is operating as a computer....

Is that a requirement for machines to think?  Consider a machine with
sensory inputs and motor outputs.  It needs a controller.  Do you have
to have an actual brain inside, or will it be sufficient to have a
computer that simulates the brain?

Flying.  We talked about flying.  A computer can't fly.  But if you
build a machine with eyes, and wings, and feet, and it needs a
controller, a machine that simulates a brain will be just as effective
as a genuine brain.

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.