[comp.society.futures] AI & People & *IF*

cbs@geacrd.UUCP (Chris Syed) (06/14/88)

Doug Thompson writes...
 
>> Science can do nothing much with phenomenon which 
>> are neither  sensible nor predictable. 
 
   I really like this article, but I'm not sure just what sort of 
   phenomena are "not sensible". Are you referring to 'intuition'? 
   Or maybe to 'relations' among sensible objects (see below)?
   [Given that philosophy usually uses the term 'phenomenon' to refer
   precisely to an event which _can_ be apprehended by the senses 
   (i.e. "is sensible")].

jimmyz writes...

>> THe brain is undoubetedly a complex computer, but the
>> mind is a non-tangible thing. Just as this VAX 8600 I am using now 
>> is a complex (supercomputers and the like aside) computer, but the
>> programs I am using to send this message have absolutely no physical
>> substance. I'd say there is a heck of a lot of similarity.

   Pardon???
   The bits of info that comprise the VAX OS and applications code
   certainly _are_ tangible. They're _measurable_ chunks of electro-
   magnetism, with exactly as much 'physical substance' as all the other
   objects of physics.

   If one said that the 'relations' among the various bits in the data
   structures were not tangible, (that is, one can see which bits are turned
   on, but not how they interract), one might be on an interesting track.
   But the relations _must_ be defined. When a particular op code hits the 
   machine, certain gates _must_ always open or shut in exactly the same way.
   Otherwise, each time you ran a program, you'd get randomly different
   results. (my programs do that a lot!).

   The neat thing about the 'mind' is that the same input may result in 
   many many different outputs because the 'gates' and even the 'structures'
   appear capable of ongoing redefinition. The 'mind' changes the rules as
   the game goes on. The brain actually seems to create new gates and 
   to set up overlays of connections as it 'learns'. 'Intuition' may just
   be overlaying, suddenly, unexpectedly, to a new algorithm. The really
   wierd thing is that the 'supervisor' program can't always control these
   apparently random associations.

   At least, that's what I thought a moment ago!
      
      {uunet!mnetor,yunexus,utgpu} !geac!geacrd!cbs (Chris Syed)