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