colonel@buffalo.CSNET ("Col. G. L. Sicherman") (10/06/86)
I'm amazed that nobody has responded to Peter Pirron's last argument: > The belief, that man's cognitive or intelligent abilities will > never be reached by a machine, is founded in the conscious or > unconscious assumption of man's godlike or godmade uniqueness, > which is supported by the religious tradition of our culture. It > needs a lot of self-reflection, courage and consciousness about > one's own existential fears to overcome the need of being unique. > I would claim, that the conviction mentioned above however > philosophical or sophisticated it may be justified, is only the > "RATIONALIZATION" (in the psychoanalytic meaning of the word) of > understandable but irrational and normally unconscious existential > fears and need of human being. Even net.ai, which is still a chaos of wild theories, has gone beyond regarding the a.i. question as a matter of science versus religion. Some arguments against Pirron's conjecture: -- If the objection to a.i. is rooted in cultural dogma, it's illogical to look at the psychology of the individual. Every individual is, now and always, unique--though some of us may feel that we are too much like others. This is quite another question than whether our species is unique. -- Other animals, and even plants, have intelligence--not to mention viruses! Many of us regard even a dog's intelligence as beyond the capabilities of a.i., at least in the way that scientists presently think about a.i. -- Even an electric-eye door can be regarded as a successful implementation of artificial intelligence. We skeptics' greatest doubts tend to focus on theories of emergent intelligence--theories as attractive to some modern researchers as the Philosopher's Stone was to medieval researchers, and (some say) with just as little basis in the nature of things. -- To divide intelligent beings into men and machines is not necessarily precise or exhaustive. For example, ghosts may be intelligent without belonging to either category. -- A secular equivalent of "godlike uniqueness" is that man is special: that we mean more to ourselves than does anything else, living or lifeless. Only a scientist would argue with this. 8 |-I