[ExI] Fwd: trying to post

[Stefano Vaj]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
Date: 6 July 2011 11:16
Subject: Re: trying to post
To: "G. Livick" <glivick at sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>


On 5 July 2011 20:10, G. Livick <glivick at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I'm not convinced that it is possible (general simulation of the human
> mind).

We have no direct or for that matter indirect experience of the whole
space of arithmetical operations, yet we are convinced that barring
division by zerr all of  them are "possible", even though not
necessarily in practical terms.

Now, I would not see how the human (or any biological) mind, or entire
system, would escape the principle of computational equivalence, as
far as producing a given output to a given input is concerned.

> Assuming that it is possible for a human to program such an
> emulation might arguably require having first favorably resolved the seldom
> asked question of whether there are some phenomena beyond the ability of the
> (present state) human mind to comprehend.

"Comprehend" literally means to contain. Of course any limited-memory
system cannot contain things the complexity of which goes beyond the
relevant threshold. But, thank gods, we can profit from external
devices and adopt metaphors allowing us to operate with such things.

> If ever there was a skeptic, it would be me. But  I see no demonstrable
> limit to what we will be able to emulate in software in the future, if for
> no other reason than our current progress can be quantified and plotted on a
> graph to allow such projections.  The machines that play chess, the ones
> that fly planes, and the ones that predict weather, all outperform humans,
> and it is only obvious to the average person that a machine is engaged in
> these tasks when he sees the actual machine.  But I don't consider
> human-equivalent performance in a machine as representative of intelligence
> in the same metaphysical sense as the intelligence revealed through the
> novel use of tools by chimps in the wild.  One is 'artificial' in my mind,
> the other is 'actual.'

Yes, the point is that I am with the Circle of Vienna in not
considering metaphysical senses to make any sense in any context...
:-)

> If the term "Artificial Intelligence" was replaced with "Simulated
> Intelligence," the distinction, which is real, would be more obvious.

A simulated PC is something which pretends to be a PC, perhaps very
superficially, for some purpose or another. An emulated PC is
something functionally equivalent for what we care for (not the
cabinet, eg, but the ability to run PC programs).

--
Stefano Vaj



-- 
Stefano Vaj