[MD] A.I.

[Ham Priday]

Magnus, Platt, All --



[Platt]:
> Those interested in A.I. will find a recent article by David Gelernter 
> (who
> needs no introduction to A.I. fans) at:
>
> http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gelernter10.1/gelernter10.1_index.html
>
> He points out that human thinking involves a lot more than reason. Perhaps
> you'll find his ideas helpful in understanding the MOQ's intellectual 
> level.

I don't think a professor of computer science is the best authority on human 
thinking.  However, for those who don't read this article, this paragraph 
sums up Gelernter's argument:

"Human beings and animals are conscious and, as the philosopher John Searle 
has argued (in effect), a scientist must assume that consciousness results 
from a certain chemical, physical structure-just as photosynthesis results 
from the chemistry of plants.  You can't program your laptop or cellphone to 
transform carbon dioxide into sugar; computers are made of the wrong stuff 
for photosynthesis-and the wrong stuff for consciousness."

As I've said many times, the fallacy in relegating human functions like 
consciousness, intellection, conceptualization, and sensibility to a 
supra-human domain or level is that it makes man little more than a robot of 
natural evolution.  Of course we can build a machine that duplicates the 
function of a thinking robot. In his own way, Pirsig's positing of the 
universe as a "moral system" favors A.I development.  His MoQ reduces 
sentient subjects to mere "quality patterns" driven by nature's universe 
rather than by their own rationalized value-sensibility.  The consequence of 
this worldview will be a collective society that dismisses individual 
freedom, creativity, and personal fulfillment as outmoded egoistic "static 
patterns".

We're halfway there already, aren't we Platt?

Best regards and higher hopes for betterness,
Ham