What do you think Socrates (and/or his sidekick Phaedrus) would say in
response to the assertion of Bush (and his epigone Oliver), on the question
of whether machines help us think, or can think for themselves? How much
would (or does) Bush actually claim in this area? How much does Oliver go
beyond what Bush claims? In what particulars do Bush and Socrates disagree?
What do you think any of these four might have to say about the possibility
of artificial intelligence?
In case your memory of these readings is fuzzy, here's some fodder for a
response:
..every time one combines and records facts in accordance with established
logical processes, the creative aspect of thinking is concerned only with
the selection of the data and the process to be employed and the
manipulation thereafter is repetitive in nature and hence a fit matter to be
relegated to the machine.
What we need is something like a construction kit for thinking with.
Something that would encourage us to play with ideas. This could include
things like Vannevar Bush's idea of associative trails through existing
material developed by adventurous people. These could provide some inspiring
models. But computers can provide much more stimulating and playful forms of
interaction.
Soc. I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfortunately like
painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and
yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same
may be said of speeches. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but
if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker
always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down
they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand
them, and know not to
whom they should reply, to whom not: and, if they are maltreated or abused, they
have no parent to protect them; and they cannot protect or defend themselves.
Phaedr. That again is most true.
Soc. Is there not another kind of word or speech far better than this, and
having far greater power -- a son of the same family, but lawfully begotten?
Phaedr. Whom do you mean, and what is his origin?
Soc. I mean an intelligent word graven in the soul of the learner, which can
defend itself, and knows when to speak and when to be silent.
Phaedr. You mean the living word of knowledge which has a soul, and of which
written word is properly no more than an image?
Soc. Yes, of course that is what I mean.
John Unsworth / Director, IATH / Dept. of English
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~jmu2m/