pd@eisx.UUCP (P. Devanbu) (09/26/83)
There are two AI problems that I know about: the computing power problem (combinatorial explosions, etc) and the "nature of thought" problem (knowledge representation, reasoning process etc). This article concerns the latter. AI's method (call it "m") seems to model human information processing mechanisms, say legal reasoning methods, and once it is understood clearly, and a calculus exists for it, programming it. This idea can be transferred to various problem domains, and voila, we have programs for "thinking" about various little cubbyholes of knowledge. The next thing to tackle is, how do we model AI's method "m" that was used to create all these cubbyhole programs ? How did whoever thought of Predicate Calculus, semantic networks, Ad nauseum block world theories come up with them ? Let's understand that ("m"), formalize it, and program it. This process (let's call it "m'") gives us a program that creates cubbyhole programs. Yeah, it runs on a zillion acres of CMOS, but who cares. Since a human can do more than just "m", or "m'", we try to make "m''", "m'''" et al. When does this stop ? Evidently it cannot. The problem is, the thought process that yields a model or simulation of a thought process is necessarily distinct from the latter (This is true of all scientific investigation of any kind of phenomenon, not just thought processes). This distinction is one of the primary paradigms of western Science. Rather naively, thinking "about" the mind is also done "with" the mind. This identity of subject and object that ensues in the scientific (dualistic) pursuit of more intelligent machine behavior - do you folks see it too ? Since scientific thought relies on the clear separation of a theory/model and reality, is a mathematical/scientific/engineering discipline inadequate for said pursuit ? Is there a system of thought that is self-describing ? Is there a non-dualistic calculus ? What we are talking about here is the ability to separate oneself from the object/concept/process under study, understand it, model it, program it... it being anything, including the ability it self. The ability to recognize that a model is a representation within one's mind of a reality outside of ones mind. Trying to model this ability is leads one to infinite regress. What is this ability ? Lets call it conciousness. What we seem to be coming up with here is, the INABILITY of math/sci etc to deal with this phenomenon, codify at it, and to boldly program a computer that has conciousness. Does this mean that the statement: "CONCIOUSNESS CAN, MUST, AND WILL ONLY COME TO EXISTENCE OF ITS OWN ACCORD" is true ? "Conciousness" was used for lack of a better word. Replace it by X, and you still have a significant statement. Conciousness already has come to existence; and according to the line of reasoning above, cannot be brought into existence by methods available. If so, how can we "help" machines to achieve conciousness, as benevolent if rather impotent observers ? Should we just mechanistically build larger and larger neural network simulators until one says "ouch" when we shut a portion of it off, and better, tries to deliberately modify(sic) its environment so that that doesn't happen again? And may be even can split infinitives ? As a parting shot, it's clear that such neural networks, must have tremendous power to come close to a fraction of our level of abstraction ability. Baffled, but still thinking... References, suggestions, discussions, pointers avidly sought. Prem Devanbu ATTIS Labs , South Plainfield.
mat@hou5d.UUCP (M Terribile) (09/28/83)
I may be naive, but it seems to me that any attempt to produce a system that will exhibit conciousness-;like behaviour will require emotions and the underlying base that they need and supply. Reasoning did not evolve independently of emotions; human reason does not, in my opinion, exist independently of them. Any comments? I don't recall seeing this topic discussed. Has it been? If not, is it about time to kick it around? Mark Terribile hou5d!mat
samir@drufl.UUCP (09/28/83)
I agree with mark. An interesting book to read regarding conciousness is "The origin of conciousness in the breakdown of bicamaral mind" by Julian Jaynes. Although I may not agree fully with his thesis, it did get me thinking and questioning about the usual ideas regarding conciousness. An analogy regarding conciousness, "emotions are like the roots of a plant, while conciousness is the fruit". Samir Shah AT&T Information Systems, Denver. drufl!samir