From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:ucbesvax!turner Newsgroups: net.ai Title: Re: No people or robots for Camus - (nf) Article-I.D.: ucbcad.468 Posted: Mon Feb 7 14:34:18 1983 Received: Wed Feb 9 02:17:31 1983 #R:cornell:-396500:ucbesvax:1800001:000:1631 ucbesvax!turner Feb 6 20:23:00 1983 Well, but I think that Prem has a point here. First, however, we should take note of the caveat in (1) - "by mathematical or linguistic means". By which, of course, he means to imply that these are the only forms of communication to machines (intelligent or not.) A debatable point, perhaps. Where I think he's right is on the means by which any existing consciousness is communicated: from the environment (including the body) to the potential communicant, via sensory organs. The newborn-to-brat trans- formation need not take place only through communication from other intelligent beings, though the evidence (e.g., feral/isolated children) suggests that this is enormously helpful. This environment, and the extent to which our perceptions of it are shared, is what leads us to believe in each other's consciousness. This belief may be an act of faith. So what? By the way, nothing I've said here is terribly original. Most of it derives from Hubert Dreyfus's [gaak-coff-spew] critique of the AI community. PLEASE READ HIS BOOK, if you haven't already. If you have, read it again. Even AI people have made concessions in this direction (which Hubie himself only too gleefully points out.) Dreyfus's main point about AI is, I think, that not only are AI people reinventing philosophy, but they're doing it a SLOWER rate than the philosophers of over a century ago, since they have to periodically stop and write huge programs that prove very little. So read Dreyfus, read some philosophy, and then come back to your Pop-Logicians and see how wonderfully modern they sound. Sigh. Flame Off. Michael Turner