Jeffrey L. Elman, Elizabeth A. Bates, Mark H. Johnson, Annette Karmiloff-Smith, Domenico Parisi, and Kim Plunkett, (eds.), Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development, Neural Network Modeling and Connectionism Series and Kim Plunkett and Jeffrey L. Elman, Exercises in Rethinkin
Jeffrey L. Elman, Elizabeth A. Bates, Mark H. Johnson, Annette Karmiloff-Smith, Domenico Parisi, and Kim Plunkett, (eds.), Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development, Neural Network Modeling and Connectionism Series and Kim Plunkett and Jeffrey L. Elman, Exercises in Rethinkin
复制标题
Jeffrey L. Elman、Elizabeth A. Bates、Mark H. Johnson、Annette Karmiloff-Smith、Domenico Parisi 和 Kim Plunkett（编），《重新思考先天性：发展的联结主义观点》、神经网络建模和联结主义系列以及 Kim Plunkett
作者：
K. Aizawa
就像精神问题经常出现的情况一样，笛卡尔的影子在这场讨论的大部分背景中徘徊，既干扰又唤起人们的回忆。例如，有趣的是要记住，笛卡尔否认动物的精神状态，其理由与今天许多人想要否认计算机的精神状态大致相同：它们无法表达自己，也不需要用意识来解释它们的行为。很少有人遵循笛卡尔关于动物的推理。事实上，斯蒂芬·图尔明曾经问过一群哲学家和科学家：“有没有人。. .真的相信狗没有感情-而不是有理论上的理由认为他们必须说狗没有感情？“（凯泽，维姆（导演），一个光荣的事故，第七部分：思想的冲突，人文电影公司;可从PBS家庭视频获得）。在讨论人工智能的时候，我们可能会遇到一个匡威的问题：“是否有人真的相信计算机可以用情感编程--而不是有理论上的理由迫使人们说它可能？”罗莎琳德·皮卡德的建议是明确的，挑衅性的，紧迫的，他们邀请这个问题的搜索审查。
As is often the case with issues concerning the mind, the shade of Descartes hovers in the background of much of this discussion in ways that are both interfering and evocative. For example, it is interesting to bear in mind that Descartes denied animals mental states on much the same grounds that many today want to deny computers mental states: their inability to express themselves and the absence of need to explain their behavior with reference to consciousness. Few have followed Descartes’s reasoning concerning animals. Indeed, Stephen J. Toulmin once asked a group of philosophers and scientists: “Does anybody . . . truly believe that dogs don’t have feelings – as opposed to have theoretical reasons for thinking that they have to say dogs don’t have feelings?” (Kayzer, Wim (director), A Glorious Accident, Part 7: A Clash of Minds , Films for the Humanities, Inc.; available from PBS Home Video). We may be at a point in the discussion of artificial intelligence where the converse question is paramount: “Does anyone really believe that a computer can be programmed with emotions – as opposed to have theoretical reasons that compel one to say that it might?” Rosalind Picard’s proposals are clear, provocative, and urgent, and they invite searching scrutiny of this question.