Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5468 talk.philosophy.misc:3412 sci.philosophy.tech:1879
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!dftsrv!mimsy!flink
From: flink@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul V Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Can Machines Think?
Summary: Not wrong, just different?
Message-ID: <21745@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 90 21:40:36 GMT
References: <21606@mimsy.umd.edu> <09dh023L7b7r01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Reply-To: flink@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul V Torek)
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 45

I asked:
pt>Are you suggesting that
pt>(a) Some types of conscious thought might go wrong were it not for the
pt>	"noise", or
pt>(b) Although a "noiseless" system might pass the Turing Test, "noise"
pt>	might be necessary for consciousness to exist at all?
pt>(Or something else?)

kp@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting) writes:
>I have in mind the "something else".
>
>The point about noise in chaotic systems arises as an objection to the
>argument that if all other attempts at AI fail, at least we can
>numerically model the phyics of the brain.  For this argument to work,
>we need to be sure that we really *can* make an accurate model.  Chaotic
>systems can mechanically amplify small discrepancies in initial state

But that doesn't matter unless (a) is true.  As many people pointed out
in reply to you, the fact that an AI system doesn't duplicate the thought
processes of any *particular* person, is no problem for strong AI.  The
fact that my thought processes are different from yours doesn't
necessarily mean I'm wrong (or that I'm not really thinking) -- it just
means I'm different.

Now suppose that (a) *were* true -- the "noiseless" system goes wrong,
because (say) it can't think creatively, because "noise" is necessary
to do so.  Now *that* would be a problem.

>I think (b) is reversed.  Random brain events are probably important in
>human behavior, thus affecting the Turing test.  But at least the sort
>of thinking that is used to evaluate decision functions or logical
>arguments seems to depend little on randomness.

I agree that any particular person's behavior probably depends on random
events in her brain, but I doubt that this would affect the Turing test
-- a noiseless system would not respond "wrongly", just differently.  That's
my hunch.  But let's let that pass.  Your last sentence says that a
noiseless system would probably pass those aspects of the Turing Test
which involve such tasks as you mention.  I agree, but what (b) was
suggesting was that the Turing Test might not be an adequate test of
whether a "thinker" is conscious.  (And if you define "thought" such
that it must be conscious, then non-conscious things can't think.)
-- 
"There ain't no sanity clause" --Marx
Paul Torek					flink@mimsy.umd.edu