Letters to the Editor
Frank,
Re:
Editor�s page � (The Palestine Question)
I
just read your editorial (I liked it very much) and I figured I'd
toss
a comment at you before the rest of the issue has me flummoxed.� Your points are well-taken and even-handed,
but one seems to be missing � and that is that many of the Arab states in the
region are de facto religious states as well.
Also,
re: "Heresies in Pursuit of Peace" is good stuff.� While I don't
necessarily
agree on all points (and after a quick look at Starhawk's web, I also doubt if
we'd be likely to hang out and pound beers) the essay is exceptionally well
written and more importantly, persuasive.�
Normally, when I read similar articles (or other writings by people
"like her") I find myself arguing even before I'm finished
reading.� Not so in this case. Maybe you
could have it translated into Hebrew and Arabic and send it to some others who
might ought to read it.
Bob
Cohen
New
York
________________________________________
RE:
Are machines living things?
The
latest issue of Southern Cross Review features a discussion between Stephen
Talbott and Kevin Kelly, an A.I. enthusiast, about whether or not living things
are entirely distinct from machines. Mr. Kelly comes up with a number of
astonishing and objectionable ideas about our manipulation of life and our
attempts to create intelligent machines. In this connection, I heartily
recommend Val Setzer's article "Artificial Intelligence or Automated
Imbecility?" posted at his website ( http://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer ). I
am not sure how many people even in the A.I. camp would agree with some of
Kelly's comments:
"The
arguments for why living beings are different from created beings range from,
"living beings are trying to express their wholeness while created beings
don't" to "parts of an organism interpenetrate each other, and do so
in a manner whereby the whole is revealed as active within each part, while in
a machine they do not." These reasons can seem as far fetched to me as some
of the reasoning of old as to why white people were categorically different
from blacks."
By
this line of reasoning, I wonder if Mr. Kelly thinks we should allow computers
to vote in elections, or if it should be made illegal to turn them off? But let
us give him some credit; obviously, he wants to apply this principle to
"intelligent machines" such as are promised by A.I. enthusiasts, but
which do not exist yet. I suppose that if it were possible to construct a
machine that could think and feel, then we would have to consider whether that
creation has human rights. As Val makes clear in his article, however, such
machines are impossible.
The
question now presents itself: why do people want strong A.I. to be
possible?
I have given this question some thought, and came up with the following ideas:
1.
People want personal immortality. Because this is no longer available to
materialists in a traditional way, they dream of being able to
"download" their consciousness into a computer where it can exist
indefinitely, so long as the power's on. This dovetails with dreams of power
and heightened abilities that would come with giving oneself a robot body and
random access to computer data etc. Dreams of mechanical immortality are
plentiful in science fiction.
2.
Humanity is disgusted with itself, and therefore dreams of being replaced by
something better, like intelligent robots. This is manifest in the ending of
the movie A.I., where humanity has managed to exterminate itself by
causing floods through global warming (rather like the Old Testament God
judging mankind unfit and seeking to wipe us out in a flood).
3.
People wish for, but at the same time fear, control over all things. If strong A.I.
were possible - that is, if humans were shown to be mere physical systems that
can be replicated by machines - one could say that full control of human life
is possible. This was, of course, the dream of B.F. Skinner and his
behaviourist programme as outlined in Beyond Freedom and Dignity.
Fortunately
there is a strong revulsion in popular consciousness to the realization of
these dreams/nightmares. One sees this in immensely popular movies such as
Terminator and the Matrix, in which intelligent machines are cast as the
epitome of evil. It seems to me that the A.I. enthusiasts simply lack the
imagination to foresee what their programme really entails, whereas certain
films realize it well.
Robert
Zimmer