🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7462@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
writes:
> ...
> You're in good company.  John McCarthy makes the same kind of
> argument.  According to him, a thermostat is capable of three
> different thoughts: "it's too hot", "it's too cold", and "the
> temperature here is just right". ...

The device purported to be having thoughts about the ambient temperature
is in fact constructed from two thermostats, (one for too hot and the
other for too cold), and the actual situation is being obfuscated by
complexity.

A single thermostat is only capable of answering the question, "The
ambient temperature above a certain design value or user setting -
True or false?"  It is NOT capable of "knowing" the answer to the
decision problem that it answers.  This is because a thermostat can not
send electrical current through its own circuit, and thus it has no way
to test its own state.  It CAN NOT develop thoughts about the ambient
temperature, because it has no access to a thermostat!

Suppose that we wire in another thermostat, (and a few supercomputers),
so the first one could obtain information about the ambient temperature.
Would the first thermostat then begin having thoughts about the ambient
temperature?  No, for the reason that it is not in the nature of its
being to care about the temperature.  Temperature is irrelevant to its
existence as a thermostat.  It is not a matter of degree or complexity;
it is a matter of essence.

This does not say that it is impossible to build machines that think.
Such machines, however, will not scale up from the rudimentary thoughts
of nuts and bolts; and they probably will not scale up from the equally
non-existent thoughts of universal Turing machines and algorithms.
--
John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID  83707, (208) 343-1865

uunet!visdc!jiii