Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5335 talk.philosophy.misc:3392 sci.philosophy.tech:1851
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder
From: byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Can Machines Think?
Summary: Can "brains" think without help?
Message-ID: <483@smcnet.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jan 90 06:09:36 GMT
References: <1037@ra.stsci.edu> <6902@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>
Organization: Santa Monica College Telecom, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 50

In article <6902@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>, mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) writes:
> In article <1037@ra.stsci.edu> bsimon@stsci.EDU (Bernie Simon) writes:

[Parts 1-4 deleted for brevity]

> !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.

I think that this is being a little bit too restrictive.  It is pretty
clear (at least to those of us who believe that humans can think ;-) that
brains think.  However without the "machine" through which it operates
it couldn't do much about changing the world or discovering facts about
it.  To be fair, our potentially intelligent computer would have to have
some kind of "body" with senses and output devices (hands, wheels, or
at least a video display).

> !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.

What would be missing is something for the computer/machine to think about
and a way for it to let us know that it thought something.  There's not
much to think about without any input.  As for what thinking is, the 
definition ought to include interpretation of information, the deduction 
of new information, and decisions about courses of action.  Isn't that 
something both brains and programs both do pretty well?

> !.... 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....

Maybe we should look at it the other way around, we could have a computer
acting as a brain in this machine/computer.  If it interpreted sensory data
selected actions, and orchestrated their implementation (say, by flapping
wings) isn't that accomplishing the same end as a brain would?


Brian Yoder


-- 
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
| Brian Yoder                 | answers *byoder();                            |
| uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers |
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-