[MD] Artificial intelligence? Of course! Artificial Intellect? Never.

[Horse]

Hi John

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you - computers, kids and 
birthdays (not mine) and other crap getting in the way. Anyway, where 
was I? Oh yeah....
I can't find my copy of  Penroses book so I've been trying to remember 
exactly why I thought it was a pretty poor read and I think it was 
partly because I was expecting a book mainly to do with AI and instead 
ended up with a book on popular science! Which was a bit disappointing. 
I also found it very odd that he spent most of the book talking about 
almost everything except AI. His explanations of various aspects of 
science - quantum computers, mandelbrot set, turing machines etc. - were 
very interesting and informative (also relevant to some parts of the 
degree course I was doing at the time) but I don't think they were 
entirely relevant to AI and refuting strong AI.
What Penrose was trying to specifically disprove or refute was John 
Searle's idea of strong AI - and if I remember correctly, used the 
chinese room example to do this. I won't go into it here, as you can 
find much better analyses on the net, but this combined with his ideas 
about chess playing computers, was where he managed to completely miss 
the point of a lot of AI research and get some of his refutation 
completely wrong.
I'm not saying that he didn't bring up a whole load of very relevant 
points because he did, but the general approach, to my mind, seemed a 
bit long-winded and not quite relevant.
To be honest though, I would probably agree with him that the top-down 
approach to AI (including the sort of reductionist approach of early AI) 
is unlikely to produce something like a human intelligence in the near 
future. The bottom-up approach of people like Rodney Brooks, Patti Maes, 
Luc Steels and others is where, in my opinion the smart money should be. 
If you're interested then check out Rodney Brooks and the subsumption 
architecture - it's fascinating and producing some amazing results. This 
was a whole area that Penrose didn't address, although, to be fair, at 
the time he wrote The Emperors New Mind it was only just getting started 
so it's understandable.
Unfortunately I know very little of Pryor and Q'm but from what you say 
you may well find what Brooks et.al. have to say is relevant.

Anyway, I hope that answers a few of your questions and if I haven't 
answered what you want to know then fire something back

Cheers


Horse

On 19/04/2010 06:10, John Carl wrote:
> Horse,
>
> You said,
>
>    
>> Penrose's arguments (especially those in "The Emperors New Mind" - the one
>>      
> that specifically targets AI) were unravelled and dismissed a long time ago
> - I read it when it came out and thought it was a pretty poor read.
>
> and it seemed that I threw in the towel myself with:
>
>
> I can see that this argument is not going to go my way at all.  :-)
>
> But I'm pretty interested in the gist of why you think Penrose is wrong.
>
>
> But then I got to think while I was driving, and I changed my mind.  Or
> rather, in spite of the unlikelihood of the argument "going my way", I wish
> to pursue it anyway.  Despite your superior expertise, I think you're wrong.
>
> Of course, we have to define exactly what we're talking about  Of course AI
> is possible.  It's more than possible, it's actual.   Artificial
> intelligence is all around us.  I often wear a wrist calculator watch
> because they're very handy on the job.  Especially if you can get one with a
> sq root function!
>
> The ability to calculate quickly that we term "intelligence", is not only
> possible, its factual.
>
> Artificial intellect, however, is another story entirely.  And here I need
> make no reference to Penrose, it is Pryor's logical argument derived from
> the Q'm" with which you must contend.
>
> For thereby, there is only one way to attain intellectual status, and that
> is by encompassing the totality of the inorganic, biological and most
> importantly, social, ways of being.
>
> For even as biological life comes to naught with a dearth of necessary
> inorganic "patterns" upon which to feed, and Social patterns die soon when
> their biological substance subsists, and all intellectual patterns die when
> no social support is given them, so it is and always must be,
> epistemologically speaking that you can't create intellectual patterning
> from inorganic matter and pure intellectual ideas.
>
> For intellect is born of self / other dichotomy nurtured into existence with
> maternal attention and biological support.  There's no way any increase of
> mere intelligence is going to re-create that process which is the heart of
> autonomous self-dom, self-realization or value-cognizance.  However you
> wanna spell it, call it consciousness, call it "I and I" for all "I" care.
>   It comes only through this social creation called infant nurture, coupled
> with biological analogues of felt pain and desire.  The whole body is a
> brain, when it comes down to our deepest understandings, and a brain hooked
> up to an environmental matrix that can't be copied by algorithm, program or
> artificial replication.
>
> And all the expertise in the world will not obviate this fundamental truth.
>
> So there.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
>    

-- 

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson