Artificial Intelligence-A Case for Agnosticism

Abstract

Almost all of the published work on the philosophical question of the limitation of mechanical intelligence has argued in favor of one or the other of the polarities of possible positions, those of the True Believer and the Infidel. It is, however, possible to take a position between these two extremes, a position we call Agnostic. We believe agnosticism concerning the possibility of artificial intelligence to be a position held by many computer scientists. In general, the True Believer maintains that "thinking" machines are "just around the corner," while the Infidel maintains that, for one reason or another, such machines are impossible. The Agnostic is willing to accept the mechanist thesis, but he feels that the relevant question for artificial intelligence research is whether it is possible to design an intelligent machine. Much of the argument between the Agnostic and the True Believer hinges on the complexity of the system to be simulated. The latter holds that man "as a behaving system" cannot be so complex as to be practically beyond design. The Agnostic holds that the mind may be "simply" a machine, but it is not a simple machine. Furthermore, there is the problem of the complexity of the procedure required to unravel the structure of a system. Even if there is agreement on the internal complexity of the mind, the question as to the complexity of the diagnostic procedure required to identify its structure remains open. Our agnosticism is one of belief, not of action.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.