suraj@jhunix (Suraj C. Surendrakumar) (02/22/90)
Recently there has been a lot of talk about simulating thinking and
other simulations. These are growing from the Chinese room etc. But is
what we are looking for is simulating thinking or thinking ? The question
is :
Is simulating thinking really thinking ?
With regard to flying, simulating flying is not really flying. At least not
to me. Where do we draw the line between real and simulation events ? So
simulation does not convience me. All responses welcomed.
SURAJ C. SURENDARKUMAR.
suraj@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Best for correspondence)
BITNET: SURAJ@JHUNIX ARPA: suraj%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: allegra!hopkins!jhunix!suraj Also on Bitnet: SURAJ@JHUVMS
Also: suraj@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu
*****************************************************************************
* SURAJ C. SURENDRAKUMAR - The Johns Hopkins University *
*****************************************************************************
asanders@adobe.COM (02/23/90)
>The question is: > >Is simulating thinking really thinking ? > >With regard to flying, simulating flying is not really flying. At least not >to me. Where do we draw the line between real and simulation events ? So >simulation does not convience me. All responses welcomed. -SURAJ C. SURENDARKUMAR. In my opinion, it is necessary to define precisely what we hope to gain from the "simulation" of phenomena in order for those simulations to be meaningful. Simulated flying is NOT real flying, but -- provided we understand flying sufficiently to model it accurately *for our purposes* -- we may succeed in creating a simulation that teaches potential fliers, or perhaps designers of airplanes, something useful about flying. I am not so certain that the analogy can be extended to thinking. While flying is an essentially mechanical phenomenon based on well-understood physical laws, *thinking* is an ephemeral process: as soon as you think you have grabbed it, it pops up somewhere else -- like reflections in a hall of mirrors. So, not only is simulated thinking NOT thinking; our understanding of real thinking is so deficient that it is doubtful we can simulate it accurately enough to learn anything useful about THINKING. This is not to say that such research is without results. Obviously it is not. But those results have their own reality and their own applications. The invention of artificial flowers gave rise to a new industry also; but no matter how detailed, how carefully made an artificial flower might be, it will never resemble a real flower *in its totality*. There is no reason why it should, but claims to the contrary would surely be misleading. Alan