jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (02/28/90)
| Hans Weigand writes regarding submarines and airplanes: | |... flying means roughly something | |like "MOVE IN AIR ON OWN FORCE", whereas swimming is more than "MOVE | |IN WATER ON OWN FORCE": it implies a certain kind of moving, inside | |or on top of the water, that we attribute to humans, fishes, ducks, | |but not to ships, submarines, and surfers. Redefining the meaning | |of "to swim" to a purely functional term is no solution of course: | |then you can say that a submarine can swim, but you still have not | |characterized the swimming in its original sense. | | |(A similar problem exists already for characterizing "flying" with | |respect to "move in the air". A jumping frog does not fly). | | |When we go to the term "thinking", again we have to ask ourselves | |whether the functional performance completely captures the concept | |or not. .... | Lyle Seaman writes: | All of this is just language usage. If instead of being called "flying | machines", the early attempts at airplanes had been called "supraterrans" | or such, we might now say that only birds and bats fly, because it involves | flapping motions that we usually only attribute to some kinds of animals. | And early attempts at submarines were never called "swimming machines". | (Does a flying squirrel fly? Or a flying fish? How is this different | from a frog?) | | So I think the debate over "do machines think" is really just a debate | over how we (fluent English speakers) use the term _think_ and not a | discussion of what machines can do. | | Now, to confuse the issue. Do dogs love their humans? Does this question | raise the same problems as the question of whether machines think? Language is exactly the point. The French have 47 words for love, the Eskimos have 47 words for snow, and the English language speakers have one word for think -- obviously, thinking is not a large part of our culture. As a result, the only pragmatic way to determine whether a machine thinks is in terms of its function: An airplane flies. A submarine swims. A machine that functions at a task that normally requires thinking, thinks. ergo, A dog that behaves like it loves its human, does love its human. (although this may be considered neurotic and/or the dog may need a psychiatrist) (Not to mention cases of humans acting like lovesick puppy dogs) Jim Winer -- jwi@mtfme.att.com -- Opinions not represent employer. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ...I've had some womderful daydreams about how the FAA controllers would react to suddenly discovering a dragon on short final into O'Hare on a busy night in IFR conditions... -- J.C. Morris, The MITRE Corp., McLean, VA
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (03/02/90)
From article <4030@cbnewsj.ATT.COM>, by jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ): >... >Lyle Seaman writes: >| All of this is just language usage. ... >... >Language is exactly the point. ... Now we're cooking with gas. The Searle-ite intuition is founded on the reasoning that `think' is said of humans, computers are not humans, and therefore computers can't think. Or rather, more precisely, computers can't `think'. Apart from the question of word usage, the line of reasoning is completely trivial and devoid of any substantive interest. I stated the fact about word usage too baldly. It is not exactly true that `think' is said only of humans, but rather of things that are human or things to which one wishes to attribute some human-like quality. So a more cumbersome but more accurate way of stating the matter is: if you wish to attribute a human-like quality to a computer, you will speak of it as `thinking'; but if you are unwilling to make such an attribution, you won't. Opponents of strong AI believe that computers are unlike humans, and, in effect, state the consequence of this belief for word usage as evidence for holding this belief. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (03/02/90)
In article <4030@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: >Language is exactly the point. The French have 47 words for love, the Eskimos >have 47 words for snow, and the English language speakers have one word for >think -- obviously, thinking is not a large part of our culture. As a result, Let's see: cogitate, reflect, consider, ponder, introspect, use one's mind, apply the mind, reason, deliberate, mull over, contemplate, meditate, ruminate, have in mind, dwell on, brood, keep in mind, remember, recall, recollect, use one's wits, rack one's brain, believe, deem, judge, surmise, presume, anticipate, conclude, guess, suppose, reckon, expect, speculate, imagine, conceive, fancy, intend, purpose, propose, plane, mean, design, contrive. Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
kp@uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting) (03/02/90)
In article <3839@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >In article <4030@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: >>Language is exactly the point. The French have 47 words for love, the Eskimos >>have 47 words for snow, and the English language speakers have one word for >>think -- obviously, thinking is not a large part of our culture. As a result, > >Let's see: > > . . . > . . . reason, deliberate, mull over, contemplate, meditate, ruminate, > . . . I like "ruminate". Philosophical problems just never get digested...
ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) (03/02/90)
and the English language speakers have one word for think -- obviously, thinking is not a large part of our culture. cute but wrong. of course people who don't know much english might not know about cogitate, contemplate, impute, infer, deduce, reflect, consider, meditate, study, lucubrate, speculate, deliberate, ponder, work your brain, cerebrate, mentate, retrospect, excogitate, recogitate, invent, muse, and theorise. -- Offer void except where prohibited by law.
jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (03/02/90)
> >Jim Winer writes: > >Language is exactly the point. The French have 47 words for love, the Eskimos > >have 47 words for snow, and the English language speakers have one word for > >think -- obviously, thinking is not a large part of our culture. As a result, The following list of words was kindly supplied by (daniel mocsny). The comments are my own:-) WORD HUMANS MACHINES -------------- ------------- --------------------- cogitate aparently unknown reflect yes yes consider yes yes ponder yes yes introspect yes maybe use one's mind no maybe apply the mind no maybe reason no yes deliberate yes yes mull over yes yes contemplate yes yes meditate yes yes (at least outer and center path) ruminate yes probably not (no stomach) have in mind yes yes dwell on yes no (obsessive behavior) brood yes no (obsessive behavior) keep in mind yes yes remember occasionally yes recall occasionally yes recollect occasionally yes use one's wits no unknown rack one's brain certainly no believe yes no deem (?) yes no judge always appropriately surmise yes yes presume yes no anticipate yes yes conclude incorrectly yes guess yes unknown suppose yes yes (decision support) reckon yes yes expect yes yes speculate yes yes imagine not usually no conceive not usually unknown fancy yes plain intend yes yes purpose yes yes propose yes yes plane (plan?) yes yes mean very not usually design occasionally yes contrive frequently rarely (Dan Mocsny) (Jim Winer) Jim Winer -- jwi@mtfme.att.com -- Opinions not represent employer. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ...I've had some womderful daydreams about how the FAA controllers would react to suddenly discovering a dragon on short final into O'Hare on a busy night in IFR conditions... -- J.C. Morris, The MITRE Corp., McLean, VA
utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) (03/04/90)
In article <4030@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: >Language is exactly the point. The French have 47 words for love, the Eskimos >have 47 words for snow, and the English language speakers have one word for >think -- obviously, thinking is not a large part of our culture. That's not at all true. My (very abridged) thesauraus gives "meditate, reflect, conceive, hold, believe, judge, opine, cogitate, reckon, ponder, consider, contemplate, imagine, fancy, regard" as synonyms for think, so there is indeed a wealth of terms in english for congitive process. Think is a more general one. And thinking is obviously a very large part of our culture anyhow. Western civilization has been built on thinking. English is currently the dominant language of that civilization. Ron
s64421@zeus.irc.usq.oz (house ron) (03/05/90)
jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: >Lyle Seaman writes: >| ... >| So I think the debate over "do machines think" is really just a debate >| over how we (fluent English speakers) use the term _think_ and not a >| discussion of what machines can do. >| >| Now, to confuse the issue. Do dogs love their humans? Does this question >| raise the same problems as the question of whether machines think? >Language is exactly the point. The French have 47 words for love, the Eskimos >have 47 words for snow, and the English language speakers have one word for >think -- obviously, thinking is not a large part of our culture. As a result, >the only pragmatic way to determine whether a machine thinks is in terms >of its function: > An airplane flies. > A submarine swims. > A machine that functions at a task that > normally requires thinking, thinks. > ergo, > A dog that behaves like it loves its human, does love its human. Eskimos have 47 words for snow (I believe you) because they distinguish between different types of snow. Thus the English coverage of these topics by a single word does not mean that these distinctions are unreal. Therefore, first, you can't prove ANYTHING about reality by analysing language. This is a well known point. See Popper. Second, the above points are simply thickly-applied behaviourism. If you believe behaviourism, you can keep on thinking of stupid examples like the above, and keep on getting applauded by the other behaviourists out there. If, however, you see that it is a real question whether other beings have an actual consciousness like the one (I presume) you have in your head, then you will realise that you won't decide the question by silly word analogies. Regards, Ron House. (s64421@zeus.irc.usq.oz) (By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350) From: BUNYIP::root "System PRIVILEGED Account" 5-MAR-1990 12:52:19.69 To: uqvax::newsmgr CC: Subj:
jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (03/05/90)
> >Jim Winer writes: > >Language is exactly the point.... > >-- obviously, thinking is not a large part of our culture. > Ronald BODKIN writes: > That's not at all true. My (very abridged) thesauraus gives > [lots of synonyms for think] > .... And thinking is obviously a very large part of our > culture anyhow. Western civilization has been built on thinking. English > is currently the dominant language of that civilization. Western culture has been built, like all surviving modern cultures, on superior weapons of war -- you may choose to consider this as superior thinking ability. If our weapons weren't better than the German and Japanese weapons, German and Japanese would be the dominant languages. As the Japanese seem to have better economic weapons, Japanese may soon be the dominant language. If you think [sic] that thinking is a large part of our culture, I suggest you examine any protohuman between the ages of 14 and 65. Unless the gonads are organs of thinking, what drives our world is not thinking. Jim Winer -- jwi@mtfme.att.com -- Opinions not represent employer. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ...I've had some womderful daydreams about how the FAA controllers would react to suddenly discovering a dragon on short final into O'Hare on a busy night in IFR conditions... -- J.C. Morris, The MITRE Corp., McLean, VA
es@sinix.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) (03/06/90)
In article <6791@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >From article <4030@cbnewsj.ATT.COM>, by jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ): >>... >>Language is exactly the point. ... > >Now we're cooking with gas. The Searle-ite intuition is founded on the >reasoning that `think' is said of humans, computers are not humans, and >therefore computers can't think. Or rather, more precisely, computers >can't `think'. Apart from the question of word usage, the line of >reasoning is completely trivial and devoid of any substantive interest. > >I stated the fact about word usage too baldly. It is not exactly true >that `think' is said only of humans, but rather of things that are human >or things to which one wishes to attribute some human-like quality. So >a more cumbersome but more accurate way of stating the matter is: if >you wish to attribute a human-like quality to a computer, you will speak >of it as `thinking'; but if you are unwilling to make such an >attribution, you won't. Opponents of strong AI believe that computers >are unlike humans, and, in effect, state the consequence of this belief >for word usage as evidence for holding this belief. > So, if it's that easy, why don't you simply redefine "thinking" as "what computers" (instead of humans) are doing. That way, you would get an "intelligent" machine at reasonably low effort. :-) Back to seriousness: I don't see that the frequently occurring argument that Searles has no concept of thinking, understanding, intelligence does lead very far. The problem is that nobody has such a concept. There are some properties and results of it which can be described, some of them, like memorizing, recalling from memory, comparing, counting and computing can be isolated and simulated by several machines, such as books, meters, calculators, and, most general, computers. Some time ago, one might have believed to be close to definitely solving the problem of building a thinking machine when getting one giving reasonable answers when asked for the cubic root of an arbitrary number. Nowadays, since that's performed by pocket calculators much faster and more reliable than every human being could ever do it, the goal seem farther away then ever estimated. Remember the ability of distinguishing an italic 'a' from a pica one, a problem which seemed even not to be one, then. Something heretic: I bet that it will be possible earlier to reproduce a living (even human) being from the (then) deciphered DNS than building a machine even passing some kind of Turing test (though I doubt that would be the breakthru point). > Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu regards, es
ray@ctbilbo.UUCP (Ray Ward) (03/06/90)
In article <4053@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: >>>[...] The French have 47 words for love, [...] >>>and the English language speakers have one word for think -- [...] >WORD HUMANS MACHINES >cogitate aparently unknown [...lots of nice words...] >design occasionally yes >contrive frequently rarely Oddly enough, two of my favorites were not even mentioned: rationalize always kinda ratiocinate rarely unknown (But who among us has not at one time or another fallen into the "one-word- for-think" syndrome at the instant of posting an article to the net?) -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ray Ward Email: uunet!ctbilbo!ray Voice: (214) 991-8338x226, (800) 331-7032 Fax : (214) 991-8968 =-=-=-=- There _are_ simple answers, just no _easy_ ones. -- R.R. -=-=-=-=
thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) (03/06/90)
>Western culture has been built, like all surviving modern cultures, on >superior weapons of war -- you may choose to consider this as superior >thinking ability. If our weapons weren't better than the German and >Japanese weapons, German and Japanese would be the dominant languages. >As the Japanese seem to have better economic weapons, Japanese may soon >be the dominant language. Our weapons were not better than the German and Japanese weapons. The Allies won by the simple means of drastically out-producing the Axis. German Panther tanks were overwhelmed by the large numbers of T-34s and Shermans and Cromwells and...well, you get the idea. Building a large industrial base, and being able to turn it to whatever means are necessary, is a sign of intelligent behavior. The Japanese seem to have learned this very well, and are currently acting very intelligently indeed. >If you think [sic] that thinking is a large part of our culture, I suggest >you examine any protohuman between the ages of 14 and 65. Unless the gonads >are organs of thinking, what drives our world is not thinking. I disagree. Thinking is part of what drives the world. Do you know how many people spend hours *thinking* about sex? :-) >Jim Winer -- jwi@mtfme.att.com -- Opinions not represent employer. David Thornley Opinions? What opinions? Where?
dmn@stiatl.UUCP (Michael Nowacki) (03/07/90)
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Prototype IS the Product..." Keywords: article <1990Mar6.035358.1081@cs.umn.edu> thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes: >>Western culture has been built, like all surviving modern cultures, on >>superior weapons of war -- you may choose to consider this as superior >>thinking ability. If our weapons weren't better than the German and >>Japanese weapons, German and Japanese would be the dominant languages. > >Our weapons were not better than the German and Japanese weapons. The Allies >won by the simple means of drastically out-producing the Axis. German Panther >tanks were overwhelmed... a.) Hitler started the war, and he lost it thru incredibly stupid policys. (he was, after all, crazy.)i have seen a documentary about no less than 6 operational jet aircraft that were flyable by 1944. and we were lucky ike's gamble on a landing point for d-day worked. b.) yamamoto, or whichever admiral commanded the pearl harbor raid, threw away an _easy_ victory by his odd reticence to continue to the mainland. he probably could have occupied the entire west coast before meeting any serious resistance. both these points are non-obscure. consider, prior to the 20th century, the remnants of the other great cultures. the west is dominant merely by default. the fact that it is on a global scale is unique to 20th century technology. -- Michael Nowacki gatech!stiatl!dmn Sales Technologies, Inc |\ /| 3399 Peachtree Rd, NE | \/ | Atlanta, GA (404) 841-4000 _|ike |_
utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) (03/07/90)
In article <4073@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: >Western culture has been built, like all surviving modern cultures, on >superior weapons of war -- you may choose to consider this as superior >thinking ability. If our weapons weren't better than the German and >Japanese weapons, German and Japanese would be the dominant languages. >As the Japanese seem to have better economic weapons, Japanese may soon >be the dominant language. Our weapons were a by-product of that intelligence. But the fact that we have an advanced culture is due to our thinking. The Japanese learned much from Western Civilization (they are currently a combination of predominantly western ideas with Eastern irrationalism -- in my view). The question of economic systems, I don't really think belongs in comp.ai (if you want to follow up to somewhere else on this topic, I'll talk more about Japanese and Western economics/culture, anyhow I said currently). >If you think [sic] that thinking is a large part of our culture, I suggest >you examine any protohuman between the ages of 14 and 65. Unless the gonads >are organs of thinking, what drives our world is not thinking. I don't think the average mediocrity is what defines a culture. Our culture has had (at its highest point to date) and still retains a great deal of respect and use of intelligence. More specifically, I challenge you to find a culture with greater emphasis on thinking than that of Western Civilization. Ron