Xref: utzoo comp.ai:6044 talk.philosophy.misc:3625
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!amdahl!pacbell!osc!jgk
From: jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Simulating thinking is NOT like simulating flying
Summary: There's lots of nonsense to be found.
Keywords: analog, computer, digitial, mind, simulation, thinking
Message-ID: <2053@osc.COM>
Date: 21 Feb 90 00:11:14 GMT
References: <20206@bcsaic.UUCP>
Reply-To: jgk@osc.osc.COM (Joe Keane)
Followup-To: comp.ai
Organization: Object Sciences Corp., Menlo Park, CA
Lines: 45

Recently i've been seeing a lot of baloney getting passed off as supposedly
common sense reasoning.  Is it just me, or are other people baffled by the
amount of nonsense in this whole discussion?

No one complains that a steel mill has a `symbol grounding problem', and no
one argues that it's only simulating making steel and polluting the air.  So
why is there such a sudden change when we talk about digital computers and
reasoning?  Why do people drag out the philosophy of consciousness and the
supposed properties of `minds'?  I might point out that no one has ever proved
`minds' exist, although the word on the street is that most humans are born
with or otherwise get one, and you don't want to lose yours.

I think `symbol cruncher' is a perjorative term to machines, much like `paper
pusher' is to humans.  The implication of this term is that computers only
push things around inside themselves, without actually doing anything useful.
On the contrary, just about anyone has at least indirectly dealt with a
computer and they know that, God forbid, computers actually cause things to
happen.  Whether it's causing a train wreck or hassling someone about a $0.00
bill, computers are out there changing with the world.

Now let's get to the digital vs. analog debate.  Somehow someone got the idea
that only an analog device can be the `real' thing.  There was a lot of this
discussion when CDs first came out, and fortunately most has gone away.  There
are many technical points for and against the digital reproduction technology
used in CDs, as compared to the analog system in conventional LP records or
that in cassette tapes.  So you can say that a particular reproduction is
better or worse than another, or faithful or high fidelity.  But do you say
that the analog LP, with all its clicks and pops, is `real', while the digital
CD is `only a simulation'?  Most music fans would immediately dismiss this
argument as ridiculous.

Or consider synthesizers.  There is the old-fashioned analog type, built out
of transistors, resistors and capacitors.  In this device the changing
voltages represent rather directly the musical waveforms being produced.  Then
there's the new-fangled digital type, which by an amazing coincidence also
contains transistors, resistors, and capacitors.  In this device the voltages
still represent the waveforms although in a less direct way.  Again you can
argue technical merits of the two types, and obviously some features are
easier to implement or tend to work better in type or the other.  But are we
to believe that the analog device is a real instrument, while the digital
version is only a simulation?

Anyway, enough ranting from me today.  If someone thinks there is actually
some substance to these arguments and would like to put them in a slightly
more scientific tone, please do so.  I'm interested to see what's there.