COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	zinger[f81,jmc]		zingers for the theologists in january
C00009 ENDMK
C⊗;
zinger[f81,jmc]		zingers for the theologists in january

	Perhaps I should confess having a chip on my shoulder about
the harm that religion has done especially lately.  Be specific if
at all, but perhaps it would be interesting to try to be genial
for a change - like Reagan.

	Considering the stupid and prejudiced attitude that the
National Council of Churches took on nuclear energy, can one expect
anything better from a WCC sponsored body on AI.
Indeed the WCC is in no position to preach to anyone on morality.

	Well, I don't know about that. You are the professionals in
the instigation and manipulation of guilt feelings.  The technology
of it has made fundamental advances in the 1960s.

	Guilt as an emotion is readily converted into hatred of those
who can be presumed even more guilty.

	Since you have chosen to regard artificial intelligence as
controversial in essence, you are unlikely to learn many facts
about it today.

	An atheist in religion and a reactionary in politics.

	The technology assessors can't assess properly the past,
let alone the future.

	I resent the fact that we probably won't begin the colonization
of space in my lifetime, and I have my ideas about whose fault it
is.

	Few technology assessors have the imagination to think of
what good things can be done with computer technology.

reread my Weizenbaum and Lighthill reviews

reread HOTER

reread Weizenbaum's paper

	Dreyfus proposed "ambiguity tolerance" as something computers
couldn't possibly have.  However, he was too vague, as are all
phenomenologists for the concept to be understandable enough for
the AI people to see any specific challenges.  Now starting from
an entirely different direction I have found a need for something
that can quite properly be called ambiguity tolerance.  Moreover
it looks like we can do it.

	I suppose you expect me to answer these charges.  Actually
there is nothing more fun than a good ad hominem argument even if
enlightenment is unlikely to come from it.  However, he who is trapped
into only defending himself is sure to come off worse, since the
audience is unlikely to be totally convinced of his innocence.  Therefore,
take Weizenbaum here.  In his original paper, ...


	In what sense can X call himself a representative of the
third world?

	Metaphilosophy may be needed for AI and can clobber many
subjective epistemological theories.

	In general AI will destroy some of the last refuges of
vitalism.

	Are there moral natural kinds?

	One can expect AI to drive religion out of yet another
scientific area, namely disussions of free will.  We need to give
robots concepts of their own free will.

Summary of AI

	1. Before World War II, mainly mythological - ignoring
forerunners like Torres y Quevedo and remarks by Babbage and
Lovelace.

	2. The doctrine of using computers was stated by Turing
in 1950, but many who should have read is paper didn't and
independently arrived at the doctrine, some (including me) after
wasting time on other approaches.

	3. The science of AI studies intellectual processes and
intellectual problems theoretically and experimentally.  Often
the experiments need only be designed - not actually performed.

	4. Some mechanisms have been identified and are understood.
Expert systems embody those that have been discovered.  They are
said to be useful in some fields.

	5. There are still fundamental unsolved problems.

	6. Mycin lacks common sense. (Check this with Genesereth).

That's all this audience needs to be told, since you have asked
for controversy rather than for information.

	Perhaps I should explain my hostile attitude towards
this audience.  I hold your attitudes responsible for the lack of solution
of the energy problem and for the lack of progress in space.