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