One of these days I am going to find out why some people want to argue in the face of the evidence that computers can become intelligent/creative in the same way as humans. Mind Hacks picked up on an article by Dennett on chess playing computers as compared with protein machines (thats us humans by the way, on a par with calling books linear based print media if you ask me). The argument goes that some people argued that humans were more intelligent than computers because they could beat them at chess. Now we can't any more so lets call a duck a duck if it quacks and admit that computers are as intelligent as us (or will be soon).
Of course the way you do this is to reduce humans to protein machines, i.e. you deny the value of intentionality, intuition, bluffing and the like. Mind you Dennett gangs up with Dawkins against Gould so I will admit a prejudice against the pair of them (I like Gould). Both want to reduce what it means to be human. Incidentally you can tell Dawkins has become a cult, you can now wear the T-shirt and proudly proclaim your atheism (I quote) and if that wasn't enough he is also selling bumper stickers! Next he will be on day time television asking us to send in money in return for a tape of his speech to support the mission ......
When a computer can invent a game like chess, I might just concede a point, but any constrained system can be computed. Its when you see old computers sitting in parks playing chess in a social setting as a retirement hobby that we should get worried. Of course by then they will also invent a religion ....
Comments (3)
I am an atheist, but this specific Dennett argument is lame. It seems to be an attempt to play on the historical issues associated with defining "What makes humans unique?", where the single-point of failure definition (tool user, language, etc.) have been serially destroyed as each definition was proposed.
The distinction being made is what Keith Sawyer (and others) call Problem Finding versus Problem Solving. Problem solving is, in many ways, a practice in taking existing patterns and manipulating them to fit an extant problem. The creation of something new, like chess, is far more subtle since it fills a 'need' that was not recognized previously. However, Sawyer also argues that something such as chess is not 'created' in an instant, but is collaboratively built.
In the situation Dave presents I think it is clear that the neo-Atheists are stepping into quick sand. There are far stronger arguments for some of their ideas, but this certainly isn't one of them!
Posted by Wayne Zandbergen | August 28, 2007 3:33 PM
Posted on August 28, 2007 15:33
So out of interest, are you taking issue with Dennet's style of argument or with the notion that human cognition is reproducible?
I'd hate to see the whole question tarred with the same brush as his specious argument. I may be misreading your post, but the tone suggests to me that you don't like the idea that the function of the human mind can ever be reproduced artificially? Am I misreading?
Posted by Daniel Harrison | August 29, 2007 1:16 AM
Posted on August 29, 2007 01:16
Issue with style for certain, but also with the idea that you can reproduce the human mind in silicon. We may at some stage in the future be able to reproduce it through growth, but not by construction.
Posted by Dave Snowden | August 29, 2007 6:51 AM
Posted on August 29, 2007 06:51