----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: Contradiction Problems????
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 07:41:57PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > Nah, its dressing up metaphysics as science that's distasteful. As
> > far as AI goes, my suspicions have a very practical basis. Since its
> > been about 5 years now and I left the company involved, I guess I can
> > name the school. Several professors from MIT came and sold AI as a
> > solution to my former company. Those of us responsible for working
> > with them kept on trying to pin them down, but they wouldn't talk
> > specifics. They kept on talking in general buzz words. Anyone who's
> > a practical scientist/engineer would have said "smoke and mirrors"
> > within 15 minutes. Luckily, we got out of working with them. Another
> > division, after spending 5 million got a nifty report.
> >
> > These guys are name AI folks at a major university. Their failure to
> > do more than smoke and mirrors. This has not been the first time the
> > oil industry has been sold down the river by AI proponents. If you
> > think that having a dim view of the present state of AI as a result of
> > this is just lowering my standards, so be it. For my part, I think it
> > is just part of being an experimentalist. :-)
>
> My reading of the criticism was that William was referring to your
> belief that there is something special/magical/divine about human
> intelligence and consciousness.
>
But there is something special about human consciousness. Think about it.
Do you have any private awareness of the motion of the planets? Do you have
any concerning the branching ratios for the various decays of the tau? Do
you have any concerning human consciousness?
The answer for me is no, no, yes. I have a reflexive self awarness. It may
be possible
> I'd say that this latter viewpoint is a more scientific and empirical
> one than the former. Do you disagree?
Certainly. Both make assumptions about the unseen. Remember my definition
concerning science? How does the assumption that a sufficiently complex
computer has a reflexive self awareness add to our ability to model, predict
the behavior of, or build computers? My guess is that if and when the
Turing test is close to being fulfilled, there will be long arguements
between proponents and opponents of a given machine...the resolution of
which will not be open to experimentation.
The arguements about AI, including the Chinese room arguement are mostly
metaphysical arguement. One of the ways to tell that is the fact that
people like Penrose and Hoffsteader are on different sides of it. Its not
as if they are argueing about what the outcome of an experiment will be, it
is the fact that they are arguing about what the meaning of the experiment
will be. There is no meaning in science.
Dan M.
