PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA (06/25/84)
> From: Michael Dyer <dyer@UCLA-CS.ARPA> > The task of AI researchers > is to show how such vague notions CAN be understood computationally, > not to go around arguing against this simply because such notions > as "intuition" are so vague as to be computationally useless at > such at a bs level of discussion. It's like my postulating the > notion of "radio" and then looking at each transistor, crystal, wire or > what-have-you inside the radio, and then saying "THAT part can't be a > radio; that OTHER part there can't be one either. Just so! > From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!band @ Ucb-Vax.arpa > Is it possible that "intuition" is the word we > use to explain what cannot be explained more > formally or logically? Why do these discussions always degenerate into suggestions of absolute limits to reason, perception or what not? That the task is *very* difficult we know, but we should not claim (without proof) that something *cannot* be done just because we cannot see how it could be done (within our lifetime...). Reminds me of those old ``if God had intended man to fly...'' arguments... Let's replace those ``what *cannot* be explained'' by ``what we can't yet explain''! -- Fernando Pereira pereira@sri-ai