From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 17:58:33 MDT
On Monday 21 July 2003 07:45, Bryan Moss wrote:
> > Are you suggesting Artificial Intelligence is impossible?
>
> No, I'm suggesting that the philosophical argument, the question of whether
> computers are capable of genuine thought, is no basis for a research
> programme. (To be honest, I don't think it's even really interesting as
> philosophy.) If you want to create a brain, study the brain. The idea
> that we can simply sit down and program "thought" is absurd.
>
Really? Well, wait and see. Programming thought, btw, is not too precise a
description of what is being attemtped. As for the philosophical question,
an existence proof beats the hell out of tomes of well-reasoned argument.
>
> This is a difficult issue. My partial solution is to argue that death, as
> an event, is culturally determined, and to ask that our view be given as
> much consideration as the "death is inevitable/desirable" view, under the
> auspice of the prevailing pluralism in society. Avoiding senescence would
> be a choice and a choice that casts itself as somewhat arbitrary, rather
> than a goal we apply to all humanity (the "millions of lives will be lost
> unless we cure aging" mentality). This requires two things: (1) greater
> understanding of what I just described as the "death is
> inevitable/desirable" view; and (2) a more detailed account of our own
> position and how it relates to the prevailing cultural situation. The
> tricky part is how to inaugerate our "sub-culture" without appearing
> arrogant; jettisoning the (mock) horror and confusion we feel at the idea
> that some people want to die is only the start. My own hope is that the
> tension between wanting to get the word out, to secure funding, etc, and
> wanting a morally defensible exclusionary practise (so we don't just seem
> like a bunch of arrogant Westerners who want to live forever while half the
> world is starving) will be alleviated simply by elucidating our position.
> My feeling is that our goals here aren't a simple product of hubris.
>
The pioneers will always appear arrogant to any who wish to stay at home or
not rock the boat as hard. So what? Why waste time attempting to
understand why some believe death is inevitable? It appears to be by default
now. Perhaps it would be better to show that if there are not full
alternatives that it can at least be postponed for quite some time. The
argument that death is a good thing, which is a view held by many, is more
interesting. The speaking of the flesh, our programming, versus actual
reasons for this position need to be fruitfully understood if we are to
answer any objections and enroll more people in expanded life.
> > [...]
> > The telephone is inanimate.
>
> A book is inanimate. Yet it embodies the ideology of its author, its time,
> its culture. Of course, the book is a particular kind of artifact designed
> to communicate, but I doubt anyone now thinks a book communicates only that
> which it was specifically designed to communicate. It's a reasonable
> extension to suggest a technology, designed with a particular function in
> mind, brings with it certain other "functions" reflective of the time and
> place of its inception. Usually these cultural biases are ascribed, in
> technology, through certain notions of efficiency and optimality. When a
> technology is transplanted from one culture to another, the result is far
> more complicated than a simple "progress." (We can accept this while
> rejecting the stronger thesis that there is no such thing as progress.)
>
To some extent but not to the extreme extent most followers of such reasoning
take it.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 18:04:49 MDT