Hofstadter, Dennett - The Mind's I

A Coffeehouse Conversation 87They revolve around different meanings of the words “can” and “computer.”PAT: Back to word games again. . . . .SANDY: That’s right. First of all, the question might mean “Does some present-daycomputer think, right now? To this, I would immediately answer with a loud “no.” Thenit could be taken to mean, “Could some present-day computer, if suitably programmed,potentially think?” This is more like it, but I would still answer, “Probably not.”The real difficulty hinge son the word “computer.” The way I see it, “computer” calls upan image of just what described earlier: an air conditioned room with cold rectangularmetallic boxes in it. But I suspect that with increasing public familiarity with computersand continued progress in computer architecture, that vision will eventually becomeoutmoded.PAT: Don’t you think computers, as we know them, will be around for a while?SANDY: Sure, there will have to be computers in today’s image around for a long time,but advanced computers – maybe no longer called computers -- will evolve and becomequite different. Probably, as in the case of living organisms, there will be manybranchings in the evolutionary tree. There will be computers for business, computers forschoolkids, computers for scientific calculations, computers for systems research,computers for simulation, computers for rockets going into space, and so on. Finally,there will be computers for the study of intelligence. It’s really only these last that I’mthinking of – the ones with the maximum flexibility, the ones that people are deliberatelyattempting to make smart. I see no reason that these will stay fixed in the traditionalimage. Probably they will soon acquire as standard features some rudimentary sensorysystems – mostly for vision and hearing at first. They will need to be able to movearound, to explore. They will have to be physically flexible. In short, they will have tobecome more animal-like, more self-reliant.CHRIS: It makes me think of the robots R2D2 and C3PO in Star Wars.SANDY: As a matter of fact, I don’t think of anything like them when I visualizeintelligent machines. They’re too silly, to much the product of a film designer’simagination. Not that I have a clear vision of my own. But I think it is necessary, ifpeople are going to try realistically to imagine an artificial intelligence, to go beyond thelimited, hard-edged image of computers that comes from exposure to what we havetoday. The only thing that all machines will always have in87