X-Message-Number: 15221
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 08:06:57 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: intelligence? computers?

Hi everyone again!

First, I must point out that my newsletter PERIASTRON has discussed the
operation of brains, including both the presence and use of stem cells
and the occurrence of new neurons, for several issues now. And I look
more widely than just NATURE and SCIENCE, which did (as Leitl points
out) recently notice these developments with a variety of reviews and
papers on how brains (including neurons) work.

Leitl does bring up some details which I haven't discussed in PERIASTRON,
but I believe I do the same. There is lots of stuff out there and 
a short article either in PERIASTRON or on Cryonet just isn't going to
cover the whole field. Hey, Leitl, would you consider subscribing to 
PERIASTRON? 

There was also another article which basically said that we would 
become hybrids between our computers and our biological brains. On
reading it, we learn that the computers may consist of DNA, a biological
molecule par excellence, though it is used differently than our DNA. If
there is a hybrid, it's not clear that it will be with a computer in 
the present sense of "computer" at all. For that matter, some may claim
that we are already such hybrids (how many readers of Cryonet are now
working or using computers?). One central issue isn't discussed, though
some may claim it need not be: we do not produce independently intelligent
devices merely by producing intelligent devices. Without some form of 
DESIRE independent of us they are tools, just like the stone axes with
which we began. Their role may be far more sophisticated than stone
axes, but their relation to us is entirely the same... no matter how
"intelligent" they may seem. 

Nor, if you think about it, is the production of such INDEPENDENT desires
as simple as it may seem. Our own desires are bound up closely with
virtually every thought we have. Intelligent thought wasn't just tacked
on, it runs through everything (or in the case of some people,
unintelligent thought, but that's a separate issue). This has got to
influence our design in the way we think about ANYTHING. It's not even
clear that our biological history gave us CONSISTENT desires or aims,
just to confuse the issue. Usually consistent, yes, but always so, 
probably not. (A FULLY consistent set of desires and/or aims raises
many philosophical issues, too). The main point here is that adding
those independent desires is far from a simple task, and may turn out
to be at least as complex a task as that of creating intelligent devices.

Yes, it was a good Cryonet. But maybe E. Leitl might be interested in
subscribing to PERIASTRON. 

			Best wishes and long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15221