Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5486 talk.philosophy.misc:3419 sci.philosophy.tech:1894
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!purdue!bls
From: bls@cs.purdue.EDU (Brian L. Stuart)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Can Machines Think?
Message-ID: <9218@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 11 Jan 90 20:00:05 GMT
References: <21606@mimsy.umd.edu> <09dh023L7b7r01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <21745@mimsy.umd.edu> <85YE02kP7duL01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Reply-To: bls@cs.purdue.edu (Brian L. Stuart)
Followup-To: comp.ai
Distribution: na
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 39

In article <85YE02kP7duL01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> kp@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting) writes:
>The divergence of the model from the real system means that for any
>person, at any time, the model would diverge significantly from that
>person's states (assuming that the brain is significantly chaotic, for the
>purpose of discussion).  So it's not just that the numerical model can't
>simulate me or you, it can't simulate *anybody*, *ever*.  So if we want to
>claim that the simulation is close enough to brain function to be
>simulated thought, then we have to show that the chaotic aspects of brain
>function are inessential to thought.
>

This is not what's really at issue here.  To simulate (or possess)
intelligence is not to simulate one that possesses intelligence.
We don't need to accurately simulate anyone.  The questions that are
significant here are: first, are the chaotic properties of the brain
necessary for intelligence?  If so, then what characteristics of the
brain's attractor are necessary?  If these characteristics are also
sufficient, then there is no reason that any system possessing the
same characteristics in its attractor will not also be intelligent.
If the attractor characteristics are not sufficient, then we have the
problem of finding out what else is necessary.

In general, just because small changes in the input to chaotic systems
can lead to qualatitivly different behavior does not mean that that
behavior is unconstrained.  It is still constrained by the system's
attractor.  Simulating an existing intelligence is a red herring;
natural intelligent systems don't simulate others, so artificial
ones likewise need not.

>BTW, my thanks to you and to the others in comp.ai who are participating
>in the philosophical discussions here.  You folks have helped me to
>clarify my ideas by your constructive and thoughtful comments.  This group
>is a good example of the solid intellectual value of Usenet.

Ditto.

Brian L. Stuart
Department of Computer Science
Purdue University