Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!esosun!jackson@freyja.css.gov
From: jackson@freyja.css.gov (Jerry Jackson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence
Message-ID: <283@esosun.UUCP>
Date: 30 Nov 88 17:52:21 GMT
References: <484@soleil.UUCP> <1654@hp-sdd.HP.COM> <1908@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <1791@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> <1918@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <44150@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, <281@esosun.UUCP> 
Sender: news@esosun.UUCP
Reply-To: jackson@freyja.css.gov (Jerry Jackson)
Organization: SAIC, San Diego
Lines: 78
In-reply-to: ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin)

In article , ap1i+@andrew (Andrew C. Plotkin) writes:
>/>goals, plans, desires for life than we.  But they'll be no less
>/>intelligent, thinking, feeling beings than we, for it.
>/
>/ I can accept the needs, goals, and plans... but why does everyone
>/ assume that an intelligent machine would be a *feeling* being?  I see
>/ no reason to assume that an IM would be capable of experiencing
>/ anything at all.  This doesn't imply that it wouldn't be intelligent.
>
>Aren't feeling and emotion automatic byproducts of thought? I find it hard to
>imagine an entity capable of thought which would *not* have (for example) some
>negative reaction to a threat, involving some attempt to rapidly find
>alternatives, etc... which is to say, fear and excitement. Other emotional
>responses can be argued similarly.
>

I agree that any thinking entity would have a negative reaction to a threat,
involving some attempt to rapidly find alternatives.  I just don't see this
as being "fear" and "excitement".  Let me explain why with an analogy:

Why does a person take aspirin?  I don't believe that the following
goes on in his head -- "I say, It appears that those neurons over
there are firing excessively.  Perhaps I should interrupt their overly
enthusiastic behavior..".  I claim it is more like:  "Owww... that really
*hurts*.  Gimme some aspirin... NOW!"  Although the physical effect of
the aspirin might be to cut off some signal in the nervous system, this
has very little to do with a person's immediate motivation for taking it.
I claim that the signal and the pain are two entirely different sorts of
beasts.

>"really feeling emotion." I'll be glad to answer this point, if you can first
>prove to me that *you* "really feel" pain, sorrow, or pleasure, and don't just
>react mechanically...)

I've heard people (usually behaviorists) make this point but I'm never sure
if they're serious (I didn't see a smiley :-).  An attempt to answer the
riddle of subjective experience by denying its existence seems somewhat 
pointless.  BTW: In a torture situation, I don't think I would have a hard
time convincing *anyone* that they can "really feel" pain. Would you agree
that torture is wrong?  Why? :-)

>
>/ I would rather not have a
>/ machine that I would be afraid to turn off for fear of harming
>/ *someone*.
>
>If you don't want a "someone", you'd better stay out of AI research... :-)
>

I am definitely *not* an opponent of AI.  I think it is very likely
that we will be able to create systems that are *operationally*
indistinguishable from humans doing the same tasks.  I think this will
be a great thing.  I do claim, however, that there is still likely to
be a difference between an intelligent machine (here referring to a
machine that models intelligent behavior in a functionalist sense, not
by physically copying the brain) and a human (or other animal).


>/  It does seem that our experience is rooted in some kind of
>/ electro-chemical phenomenon, but I think it is an incredible leap of
>/ faith to assume that logic circuits are all that is required :-).
>
>It's a point of faith, certainly, since we don't have more than one example. But
>I don't think it's unjustified, since nothing more than logic circuits has ever
>been observed. ("Logic circuits" is a bit of a misnomer, since neurons don't act
>like single standard logic gates. However, it looks possible to simulate them
>with electronics.)
>
>--Z


As I mentioned earlier, I believe the standard functionalist approach
to AI will bear fruit -- In fact, I think we will be able to generate
systems to perform any tasks we can think of... even simulate a human!
It seems unlikely that the same approach will generate artificial
*beings* with subjective experience, but this is just fine with me. ;-)

--Jerry Jackson