josh@topaz.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) (01/01/70)
krulwich@yale.ARPA (Bruce Krulwich): If I expect my car to take me to the moon and it doesn't, is it flawed?? If you expect your car to take you to the moon, then I would say your mind *is* flawed... --JoSH :^)
eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) (01/01/70)
In article <578@louie.udel.EDU> montgome@udel.EDU (Kevin Montgomery) writes: >>> In article <2281@umn-cs.UUCP>, ramarao@umn-cs.UUCP (Bindu Rama Rao) writes: >>> > Is the Human mind flawed? >C'mon guys, lighten up for a sec. Flawed implies a defect from it's >design. Therefore, if someone's mind doesn't do what it's designed Having read the postings which followed this, consider that the human eye has many blind spots, the largest where the optic nerve is and many smaller ones. The ear isn't perfect either. Also consider how we can be fooled by Necker illusions, visual, verbal, auditory, etc. Flawed many be too strong a word. Is the greater "mind" be flawed if it's components and inputs are "flawed?" I prefer the "Just is" hypothesis. On emotions: you may have something there, but AI people are not the people to answer that question. A fellow I corresponded with on AI-Digest a while noted he had a difficult time writing a Social Worker expert system. Harder to dish out artificial compassion than artificial Discrimination. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
khl@usl (Calvin K. H. Leung) (09/25/87)
Should the ultimate goal of AI be the perfecting of human intel- ligence, or the imitating of intelligence in human behavior? We all admit that the human mind is not flawless. Bias decisions can be made due to emotional problems, for instance. So there is no point trying to imitate the human thinking process. Some current research areas (neural networks, for example) use the brain as the basic model. Should we also spend some time on the investigation of some other models which could be more efficient and reliable? Provided that we have the necessary technology to build robots that are highly intelligent; they are efficient and reliable and they do not possess any "bad" characteristic that man has. Then what will be the roles man plays in the society where his intel- ligence can be viewed as comparatively "lower form"? AI, where are we going?
nakashim@su-russell.ARPA (Hideyuki Nakashima) (09/27/87)
In article <178@usl> khl@usl.usl.edu.UUCP (Calvin Kee-Hong Leung) writes: > >We all admit that the human mind is not flawless. Bias decisions >can be made due to emotional problems, for instance. So there is >no point trying to imitate the human thinking process. I believe that those "bad" characteristics of human are necessary evils to intelligence. For example, although we still don't understand the function of emotion in human mind, a psychologist Toda saids that it is a device for servival. When an urgent danger is approaching, you don't have much time to think. You must PANIC! Emotion is a meta- inference device to control your inference mode (mainly of recources). If we ever make a really intelligent machine, I bet the machine also has the "bad" characteristics. In summary, we have to study why human has those characteristics to understand the mechanism of intelligence. Hideyuki Nakashima nakashima@csli.stanford.edu (or nakashima%etl.jp@relay.cs.net)
bware@csm9a.UUCP (Bob Ware) (09/28/87)
>We all admit that the human mind is not flawless. Bias decisions >can be made due to emotional problems, for instance. ... The above has been true for all of recorded history and remains true for almost everyone today. While almost everyone's mind is flawed due to emotional problems, new data is emerging that indicates the mind can be "fixed" in that regard. To see what I am referring to, read L Ron Hubbard's book on "Dianetics". MAIL: Bob Ware, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Co 80401, USA PHONE: (303) 273-3987 UUCP: hplabs!hao!isis!csm9a!bware or ucbvax!nbires!udenva!csm9a!bware
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (09/29/87)
In article <178@usl>, khl@usl (Calvin K. H. Leung) writes: > Should the ultimate goal of AI be the perfecting of human intel- > ligence, or the imitating of intelligence in human behavior? > > We all admit that the human mind is not flawless... So there is > no point trying to imitate the human thinking process. Some > current research areas (neural networks, for example) use the > brain as the basic model. Should we also spend some time on the > investigation of some other models which could be more efficient > and reliable? I always thought there were several different currents going in AI. One stream is trying to learn how the human mind works and imitate it. Another stream is trying to fill in the gaps in the capabilities of the human mind by using unique machine capabilities in combination with imitations of the mind. Some people are working with research objectives, some have application objectives. We don't need a unique goal for AI. We contain multitudes. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu.UUCP (09/30/87)
Bob Ware, of Colorado School of Mines, writes : > ... While almost everyone's mind is flawed due to emotional problems, new > data is emerging that indicates the mind can be "fixed" in that regard. To > see what I am referring to, read L Ron Hubbard's book on "Dianetics". I suppose that if someone feels they have emotional problems and turned to Mr. Hubbard for help, there is some sense to that. He ought to know about them, since reports have indicated over the years that he has more than his fair share of them ... :-) Alternatively, one could consult someone who actually has credentials in psychology. "You pays your money and you takes yer choice." - Mark Goldfain (ARPA: goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu)
lishka@uwslh.UUCP (09/30/87)
***Warning: FLAME ON*** In article <549@csm9a.UUCP> bware@csm9a.UUCP (Bob Ware) writes: >>We all admit that the human mind is not flawless. Bias decisions... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The expression "we all" does not apply to me, at very least. Some of us (at least myself)like to believe that the human mind should not be considered to be either flawed or flawless...it only "is." I feel that making a judgement on whether or not everyone admits that the human mind is flawed happens to be a biased decision on the above net-reader's part. Realize that not everyone has the same views as the above... >>...can be made due to emotional problems, for instance. ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is this statement to be read as "emotional problems can cause bias decisions, which are flaws in the human mind?" If it does, then I heartily disagree, because I once again feel that emotional problems and/or bias decisions are not indicative of flaws in the human mind...see above for my reasons. > >The above has been true for all of recorded history and remains true >for almost everyone today. While almost everyone's mind is flawed due ^^^^^^^^^^ >to emotional problems, new data is emerging that indicates the mind can... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Again, I don't feel that my mind is "flawed" by emotional problems. To me that seems to be a very "Western" (and I am making a rather stereotyped remark here) method of thinking. As I have grown up with parents who have Buddhist values and beliefs, I think that making a value judgement such as "human minds are flawed because of..." should be indicated as such...there is no way to prove that sort of "fact." For all I know or care, the human mind is neither perfect nor flawed; it just "is," and I don't wish to make sweeping generalities such as the above. There are many other views of the mind out there, and I recommend looking into *all* Religious views as well as *all* Scientific views before even attempting a statement like the above (which would easily take more than a lifetime). >...be "fixed" in that regard. To see what I am referring to, read L Ron ^^^^^ >Hubbard's book on "Dianetics". To me this seems to be one of many problems in A.I.: the assumption that the human mind can be looked at as a machine, and can be analyzed as having flaws or not, and subsequently be fixed or not. That sort of thinking in my opinion belongs more in ones Personal Philosophy and probably should not be used in a "Scientific" (ugghh, another hard-to-pin-down word) argument, because it is damned hard to prove, if it is able to be proven at all. I feel that the mind just "is," and one cannot go around making value judgements on another's thoughts. Who gives anyone else the right to say a person's mind is "flawed?" To me that kind of judgement can only be made by the person "owning" the mind (i.e. who is thinking and communicating with it!), and others should leave well enough alone. Now I realize that this brings up arguments in other fields (such as Psychology), but I feel A.I. should try and move away from these sort of value judgements. A comment: why don't A.I. "people" use the human mind as a model, for better or for worse, and not try to label it as "flawed" or "perfect?" In the first place, it is like saying that something big (like the U.S. Government) is "flawed;" this kind of thing can only be proven under *certain*conditions*, and is unlikely to hold for all possible "states" that the world can be in. In the second place, making that kind of judgement would seem to be fruitless given all that we *do*not* know about the human brain/mind/soul. It seems to me to be like saying "hmmmm, those damned quarks are fundamentally flawed", or "neuronal activity is primarily flawed in the lipid bilayer membrane." I feel that we as humans just do not know diddley about the world around us, and to say it is flawed is a naive statement. Why not just look at the human mind/brain as something that has evolved and existed over time, and therefore may be a good model for A.I. techniques UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES? A lot less people would be offended... ***FLAME*OFF*** Sorry if the above offends anyone...but the previous remarks offended me enough to send a followup message around the world. If one is going to make remarks based on very personal opinions, try to indicate that they are such, and please remember that not everyone thinks the way you do. Of course, pretty much everything I said above is a personal opinion, and I don't presume that even one other person thinks the same way as I do (but it would be nice to know that others think similarily ;-). Disclaimer: the above views are my thoughts only, and do not reflect the views of my employer, although there is eveidence that my cockatiels are controlling my thoughts !!! ;-) -Chris -- Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu \{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka
josh@topaz.rutgers.edu.UUCP (10/01/87)
lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) writes: In article <549@csm9a.UUCP> bware@csm9a.UUCP (Bob Ware) writes: >>We all admit that the human mind is not flawless. Bias decisions... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The expression "we all" does not apply to me, at very least. Some of us (at least myself)like to believe that the human mind should not be considered to be either flawed or flawless...it only "is." It seems to me that this simply means that you hold the words "flawed" and "flawless" to be meaningless. It is as if Bob Ware were saying that the human mind were not plegrontless. Only I don't see why I would get so upset if I saw people saying that minds are plegronted at best, even if I didn't understand what they meant by the term. I would instead make an effort to comprehend the concepts being used. >>...can be made due to emotional problems, for instance. ... Is this statement to be read as "emotional problems can cause bias decisions, which are flaws in the human mind?" If it does, then I heartily disagree, because I once again feel that emotional problems and/or bias decisions are not indicative of flaws in the human mind...see above for my reasons. I would say that an emotional *problem* is by definition a flaw. If you believe that Manson and Hitler and Caligula were not flawed, but that is just the "way they were", and there is no reason to prefer Thomas Aquinas over Lyndon LaRouche, then your own reasoning is distinctly flawed. To me that seems to be a very "Western" (and I am making a rather stereotyped remark here) method of thinking. As I have grown up with parents who have Buddhist values and beliefs, I think that making a value judgement such as "human minds are flawed because of..." should be indicated as such...there is no way to prove that sort of "fact." Can you say "evangelical fundamentalist mysticism"? Your Eastern values seem to be flavored by a strong Western intellectual aggressiveness, which seems contradictory. Twice the irony in a pound of holy calves liver. There are many other views of the mind out there, and I recommend looking into *all* Religious views as well as *all* Scientific views before even attempting a statement like the above (which would easily take more than a lifetime). What an easy way to sidestep doing any real thinking. Do you suggest that we should read all the religious writings having to do with angels before we attempt to build an airplane? Do you think that one must be an expert on faith healing and the casting out of demons before he is allowed to make a statement about this interesting mold that seems to kill bacteria? In Western thought it has been realized at long and arduous last that the appeal to authority is fallacious. Experiment works; the real world exists; objective standards can be applied. Even to people. >...be "fixed" in that regard. To see what I am referring to, read L Ron >Hubbard's book on "Dianetics". Experiment (the church of scientology) shows that Hubbards ideas in this regard are hogwash. Hubbard's phenomenon had much more to do with the charismatic religious leaders of the past, than the rational enlightenment of the future. To me this seems to be one of many problems in A.I.: the assumption that the human mind can be looked at as a machine, and can be analyzed as having flaws or not, and subsequently be fixed or not. Surely this is independent of the major thrust of AI, which is to build a machine that exhibits behaviors which, in a human, would be called intelligent. It is true that most AI researchers "believe that the mind is a machine", but it seems that the alternative is to suggest that human intelligence has a supernatural mechanism. That sort of thinking in my opinion belongs more in ones Personal Philosophy and probably should not be used in a "Scientific" (ugghh, another hard-to-pin-down word) argument, because it is damned hard to prove, if it is able to be proven at all. My personal philosophy *is* scientific, thank you, and it is an objectively better one than yours is. I feel that the mind just "is," and one cannot go around making value judgements on another's thoughts. Who gives anyone else the right to say a person's mind is "flawed?" Who gives me the right to say that 2+2=4 when you feel that it should be 5? If the Wisconsin State Legislature passed a law saying that it was 5, they would be wrong; if everybody in the world believed it was 5, they would be wrong; if God Himself claimed it was 5, He would be wrong. A comment: why don't A.I. "people" use the human mind as a model, for better or for worse, and not try to label it as "flawed" or "perfect?" In the first place, it is like saying that something big (like the U.S. Government) is "flawed;" this kind of thing can only be proven under *certain*conditions*, and is unlikely to hold for all possible "states" that the world can be in. But the U.S. Government IS flawed... In the second place, making that kind of judgement would seem to be fruitless given all that we *do*not* know about the human brain/mind/soul. Back in the middle ages, we didn't know much about the Black Plague, but it was obvious that someone who caught it became pretty flawed pretty fast. Furthermore, this small understanding was considered sufficient grounds to inflict the social snubs of not associating with such a person. It is incredibly arrogant to declare that we must not make any judgements until we know everything. The whole point of having a human mind rather than a rutabaga is that you *are* able to make judgements in the absence of complete information. Brains evolving in a natural setting have always had to make *life-and-death* decisions on the spur of the moment with whatever information was available. Is that large furry creature dangerous? You've never seen a grizzly bear before. No time to consult the views of all the world's ancient religions on the subject... I feel that we as humans just do not know diddley about the world around us, and to say it is flawed is a naive statement. To say that it is not flawed is just simply idiotic. If you apply enough sophistry you may manage to get the conversation to a level where the original statement is meaningless. For example, there are (or may be) no "flawed" atoms in a broken radio. But to change the level of discussion as a rhetorical device is tantamount to lying. To do it without realizing you are doing it is tantamount to gibberish. Sorry if the above offends anyone... It offends me greatly. The anti-scientific mentality is an emotional excuse used to avoid thinking clearly. It would be much more honest to say "I don't want to think, it's too hard work." Can't you see the contradiction involved in criticizing someone for exercising his judgement? The champions of irrationality, mysticism, and superstition have emotional problems which bias their cognitive processes. Their minds are flawed. --JoSH
waldau@kuling.UUCP (Mattias Waldau) (10/01/87)
In article <178@usl> khl@usl.usl.edu.UUCP (Calvin Kee-Hong Leung) writes: >Provided that we have the necessary technology to build robots >that are highly intelligent; they are efficient and reliable and >they do not possess any "bad" characteristic that man has. Then >what will be the roles man plays in the society where his intel- >ligence can be viewed as comparatively "lower form"? > One of the short stories in Asimov's "I, robot" is about the problem mentioned in the previous paragraph. It is about a robot and two humans on a space station near our own sun. I can not tell more, otherwise I spoil your fun. It is very good!
tanner@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mike Tanner) (10/01/87)
In article <270@uwslh.UUCP> lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) writes: >In article <549@csm9a.UUCP> bware@csm9a.UUCP (Bob Ware) writes: >>We all admit that the human mind is not flawless. Bias decisions... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > [the underscored bit above indicates a number of faulty assumptions, > e.g., that it makes sense to talk about "flaws" in the mind.] > I liked this reply. Whether the problem is "western" philosophy or not, I'm not sure. It may be true for the casual AI dabbler. I.e., the average intelligent person on first thinking or hearing of the topic of AI will often say things like, "But people make mistakes, do you really want to build human-like machines?" Within AI itself this attitude manifests itself as rampant normativism. Somebody adopts a model of so-called correct reasoning, e.g., Bayesian decision theory, logic, etc., and then assumes that the abundant empirical evidence that people are unable to reason this way shows human reasoning to be flawed. These people want to build "correct" reasoning machines. I say, OK, go ahead. But that's not what I want to do. I want to understand thinking, intelligent information processing, problem-solving, etc. And I think the empirical evidence is trying to tell us something important. I am not sure just what. It seems clear that thinking is not logical (which is not to say "flawed" or "incorrect", merely "not logical"). An interesting question is, "why not?" People are able to use language, solve problems -- to think -- but is that in spite of illogic or because of it or neither? I don't think we're going to understand intelligence by adopting an a priori correct model and trying to build machines that work that way (except by negative results). If you want to say that what I'm doing is not AI, fine. I think it is, but if you'll give me a better name I'll take it and leave AI to the logicians. It is not psychology (my experiments involve building programs and generally thinking about computational issues, not torturing college freshmen). And I'm not really interested in duplicating the human mind, it's just that the human mind is the only intelligence I know. -- mike tanner Dept. of Computer and Info. Science tanner@ohio-state.arpa Ohio State University ...cbosgd!osu-eddie!tanner 2036 Neil Ave Mall Columbus, OH 43210
morgan@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu.UUCP (10/01/87)
Maybe you should approach it as a scientist, rather than an engineer. Think of the physicists: they aren't out to fix the universe, or construct an imitation; they want to understand it. What AI really ought to be is a science that studies intelligence, with the goal of understanding it by rigorous theoretical work, and by empirical study of systems that appear to have intelligence, whatever that is. The best work in AI, in my opinion, has this scientific flavor. Then it's up to the engineers (or society at large) to decide what to do with the knowledge gained, in terms of constructing practical systems.
marty1@houdi.UUCP (10/01/87)
In article <270@uwslh.UUCP>, lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) writes: > ***Warning: FLAME ON*** > > In article <549@csm9a.UUCP> bware@csm9a.UUCP (Bob Ware) writes: > >>We all admit that the human mind is not flawless. Bias decisions... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > The expression "we all" does not apply to me, at very least. Some of > us (at least myself)like to believe that the human mind should not be > considered to be either flawed or flawless...it only "is." .... Some interesting points here. Point one, the human mind is in fact a phenomenon, and phenomena are neither flawed nor perfect, they are the stuff that observation is made of. Score one for Lishka. Point two, we keep using the human mind as a tool, to solve problems. As such, it is not merely a phenomenon, but a means to an end, and is subject to judgments of its utility for that purpose. Now we can say whether it is perfect or flawed. Obviously, it is not perfect, since we often make mistakes when we use it. Score one for Ware. Point three, when we try to make better tools, or tools to supplement the human mind, all these improvements are created by the human mind. In fact, the purposes of these tools are created by the human mind. The human mind is thus the ultimate reasoning tool. Score one for the human mind. You might say the same of the human hand. As a phenomenon, it exists. As a tool, it is imperfect. And it is the ultimate mechanical tool, since all mechanical tools are directly or indirectly made by it. It is from these multiple standpoints that we derive the multiple goals of AI: to study the mind, to supplement the mind, and to serve the mind. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
czhj@vax1.UUCP (10/03/87)
In article <46400008@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> morgan@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >Maybe you should approach it as a scientist, rather than an engineer. Think >... >What AI really ought to be is a >science that studies intelligence, with the goal of understanding it by >rigorous theoretical work, and by empirical study of >systems that appear to have intelligence, whatever that is. The best work >in AI, in my opinion, has this scientific flavor. Then it's up to the >engineers (or society at large) to decide what to do with the knowledge >gained, in terms of constructing practical systems. I wholeheartedly support this idea. I'd go even further however, and say that most "AI" research is a huge waste of time. I liken it to using trial and error methods like those used by Edison which led him to try thousands of possibilities before hitting one that made a good lightbulb. With AI, the problem is infinitely more complicated, and the chance of finding a solution by blind experimentation is nil. On the other hand, if we take an educated approach to the problem, and study 'intelligent' systems, we have a much greater chance of solving the mysteries of the mind. Some of you may remember my postings from last year where I expounded on the virtues of cognitive psychology. After investigating research in this field in more detail, I came up very disillusioned. Here is a field of study in which the soul purpose is to scientifically discover the nature of thought. Even with some very bright people working on these problems, I found that the research left me cold. Paper after paper describe isolated phenomena, then go on to present some absurdly narrow minded theory of how such phenomena could occur. I've reached the conclusion that we cannot study the mind in isolated pieces which we try to put together to form a whole. But rather we have to study the interactions between the pieces in order to learn about the pieces themselves. For example, take vision research. Many papers have been written about edge detection algorithms, possible geometries, and similarly reductionist algorithms for making sense of scenes. I assert that the interplay between the senses and the experiential memory is huge. Further, because of these interactions, no simple approach will ever work well. In fact, what we need is to study the entire set of processes involved in seeing before we can determine how we perceive objects in space. This is but a single example of the complexity of studying such aspects of the mind. I found that virtually every aspect of cognition has such problems. That is, no aspect is isolated! Because of this immensely complex set of interactions, I believe that the connectionist theories are heading in the right direction. However, these theories are somewhat too reductionistic for my tastes as well. I want to understand how the mind works at a high level (if possible). The actual implementation is the easy part. The understanding is the hard part. ---Ted Inoue
lishka@uwslh.UUCP (10/04/87)
In article <46400008@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> morgan@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >Maybe you should approach it as a scientist, rather than an engineer. Think >of the physicists: they aren't out to fix the universe, or construct an >imitation; they want to understand it. I think this is a good point. I have always thought that Science was a method used to predict natural events with some accuracy (as opposed to guessing). Whether this is understanding, well I guess that depends on one's definition. I like this view because it (to me at least) parallels the attempts by nearly all (if not all) religions to do the same thing, and possibly provide some form of meaning to this strange world we live in. It also opens the possibility of sharing views between scientists and other people explaining the world they see with their own methods. >What AI really ought to be is a >science that studies intelligence, with the goal of understanding it by >rigorous theoretical work, and by empirical study of >systems that appear to have intelligence, whatever that is. The best work >in AI, in my opinion, has this scientific flavor. Then it's up to the >engineers (or society at large) to decide what to do with the knowledge >gained, in terms of constructing practical systems. I like this view also, and feel that A.I. might go a little further in studying other areas in conjunction with the human mind. Maybe this isn't pure A.I., but I'm not sure what pure A.I. is. One interesting note is that maybe the people who are implementing various Expert Systems (which grew out of A.I. research) for real-world applications are the "engineers" of which morgan@uxe speaks of. And more power to both the "scientists" and "engineers" then, and those in the gray area in between. It's good to be able to work together like this, and not have the "scientists" only come up with research that cannot be applied. Disclaimer: I am sitting here typing this because my girfriends cat is holding a gun at my head, and am in no way responsible for the content ;-) [If anyone really wants to flame me, please mail me; if you really think there is some benefit in posting the flame, go ahead. I reply to all flames, but if my reply doesn't get to you, it is because I am not able to find a reliable mail path (which is too damned often!)] -Chris -- Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu \{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka
alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy) (10/04/87)
In article <46400008@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> morgan@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
/Maybe you should approach it as a scientist, rather than an engineer. Think
/of the physicists: they aren't out to fix the universe, or construct an
/imitation; they want to understand it. What AI really ought to be is a
/science that studies intelligence, with the goal of understanding it by
/rigorous theoretical work, and by empirical study of
/systems that appear to have intelligence, whatever that is. The best work
/in AI, in my opinion, has this scientific flavor. Then it's up to the
/engineers (or society at large) to decide what to do with the knowledge
/gained, in terms of constructing practical systems.
The word "artificial" implies either an imitation or synthetic object,
or the general/abstract laws governing an entire class of such objects.
The question is, does "artifical intelligence" mean "synthetic and/or
imitation intelligence" (most computer programs currently fall into this
category :-) ) or "real intelligence exhibited by artifical systems"?
Is AI mostly concerned with the *faking* of intelligence, with intelligence
per se or with intelligence as exhibited by artificial systems?
Given the current state of the art, perhaps it should be called
"Real Stupidity". (Only half :-) ).
The "scientific" study of intelligence would involve such subfields as
cognition, semantics, linguistics, semiotics, psychology, mathematics,
cybernetics and a host of other disciplines I can't think of right now,
some of which probably don't exist yet. Creating an intelligent
"artifact" (artificial intelligence) is only a "scientific" endeavor to
the extent it serves as experimental proof (or refutation) of some
*scientific* theory, or else as the raw data from which a theory is induced.
If the purpose of AI is to build a computer just as smart as a human
being because that would be a useful tool, then it's engineering.
If the purpose is to prove or induce theories about intelligence, then it's
scientific. It appears that both cases probably apply.
It is disturbing how often "science" is confused with "technology"
and/or "engineering". People also tend to forget that science involves
both the formulating of theories AND experiments. Experiments often
require a great deal of mundane (and sometimes not so mundane)
engineering work. AI came about because computers opened up a whole
new way to experimentally test theories about intelligence.
Physicists might very well try to construct an "artificial" universe,
if it would help to prove or induce a physical theory (the "Big Bang",
for instance). They'd probably require a lot of help from the engineers,
though (and probably a permit from the EPA :-) ).
--alan@pdneyal@WISDOM.BITNET (Eyal mozes) (10/04/87)
> I believe that those "bad" characteristics of human are necessary > evils to intelligence. For example, although we still don't understand > the function of emotion in human mind, a psychologist Toda saids that > it is a device for servival. When an urgent danger is approaching, you > don't have much time to think. You must PANIC! Emotion is a meta- > inference device to control your inference mode (mainly of recources). > > If we ever make a really intelligent machine, I bet the machine > also has the "bad" characteristics. In summary, we have to study > why human has those characteristics to understand the mechanism of > intelligence. I think what you mean by "the bad characteristics" is, simply, free will. Free will includes the ability to fail to think about some things, and even to actively evade thinking about them; this is the source of biased decisions and of all other "flaws" of human thought. Emotions, by themselves, are certainly not a problem; on the contrary, they're a crucial function of the human mind, and their role is not limited to emergencies. Emotions are the result of subconscious evaluations, caused by identifications and value-judgments made consciously in the past and then automatized; their role is not "to control your inference mode", but to inform you of your subconscious conclusions. Emotional problems are the result of the automatization of wrong identifications and evaluations, which may have been reached either because of insufficient information or because of volitional failure to think. A theory of emotions and of free will, explaining their role in the human mind, was developed by Ayn Rand, and the theory of free will was more recently expanded by David Kelley. Basically, the survival value of free will, and the reason why the process of evolution had to create it, is man's ability to deal with a wide range of abstractions. A man can form concepts, gain abstract knowledge, and plan actions on a scale that is in principle unlimited. He needs some control on the amount of time and effort he will spend on each area, concept or action. But because his range his unlimited, this can't be controlled by built-in rules such as "always spend 1 hour thinking about computers, 2 hours thinking about physics" etc.; man has to be free to control it in each case by his own decision. And this necessarily implies also freedom to fail to think and to evade. It seems, therefore, that free will is inherent in intelligence. If we ever manage to build an intelligent robot, we would have to either narrowly limit the range of thoughts and actions possible to it (in which case we could create built-in rules for controlling the amount of time it spends on each area), or give it free will (which will clearly require some great research breakthroughs, probably in hardware as well as software); and in the later case, it will also have "the bad characteristics" of human beings. Eyal Mozes BITNET: eyal@wisdom CSNET and ARPA: eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu UUCP: ...!ihnp4!talcott!WISDOM!eyal
wcalvin@well.UUCP (William Calvin) (10/04/87)
Making AI a real science suffers from the attitude of many of its founders: they'd rather re-invent the wheel than "cheat" by looking at brain research. While Minsky's SOCIETY OF MIND is very interesting, one gets the impression that he hasn't looked at neurophysiology since the 1950s. Contrast that to Braitenberg's little book VEHICLES (MIT Press 1984), which summarizes a lot of ideas kicking around neurobiology at the simple circuit level. The other thing strikingly missing, besides a working knowledge of neurobiology beyond the Hubel-Wiesel level, is a knowledge of evolutionary biology beyond the "survival of the fittest" level. Emergent properties are a big aspect of complex systems, but one seldom hears much talk about them in AI. William H. Calvin University of Washington NJ-15, Seattle WA 98195
spf@moss.ATT.COM (10/05/87)
In article <493@vax1.UUCP> czhj@vax1.UUCP (Ted Inoue) writes: }Some of you may remember my postings from last year where I expounded on the }virtues of cognitive psychology. After investigating research in this field }in more detail, I came up very disillusioned. Here is a field of study in }which the soul purpose is to scientifically discover the nature of thought. }Even with some very bright people working on these problems, I found that the }research left me cold. Paper after paper describe isolated phenomena, then go }on to present some absurdly narrow minded theory of how such phenomena could }occur. Perhaps you're right; there is not doubt that the system in question is highly complex and interconnected. However, the same claim can be made about the domain of physics. And (in the west at least) research and progress in physics has been built upon small pieces of the problem, complete with small theories (which usually seemed incredibily naive when disproved). Now another approach to physics is possible (see Kapra's "Tao of Physics"). It would probably not be observational (which I require of any science) but introspective instead. Me? I like both. When I do science, I build up from measurable components, creating and discarding petty theories along the way. When I do zen, it's another matter entirely (no pun intended). The principal difficulty in cognitive science is that it is in its infancy. I think that psychology is today where physics was in Newton's time. And a LOT of "narrow minded" theories came and went in Newton's time. Including Newton's theories. Steve Frysinger
cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) (10/06/87)
In article <270@uwslh.UUCP>, lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) writes: > To me this seems to be one of many problems in A.I.: the assumption > that the human mind can be looked at as a machine, and can be analyzed > as having flaws or not, and subsequently be fixed or not. > > A comment: why don't A.I. "people" use the human mind as a model, for > better or for worse, and not try to label it as "flawed" or "perfect?" I guess I basically agree, though I certainly feel that there are some people whose reasoning is either flawed or barely existent, and it is true in fact that physiological parameters can affect thought, and that these parameters can be adjusted in certain ways to cause depression, and to recover from depression (etc). So in that way, one might say that human minds may become flawed, I suppose. On the other hand, since we pretty much define "mind" based on human ones, it's hard to say that they are flawed. If there was something "perfect" (whatever that might be", then it might very well not be a mind. I do believe that there is some mechanism to minds (or perhaps a variety of them). One reason why I am interested in AI (perhaps this is very Cog. Sci. of me, actually) is because I think perhaps it will help elucidate the ways in which the human mind works, and thus increase our understanding of human behaviour. I don't know; perhaps I am naive in that respect. At anyrate, I do try to use the human mind as a model in at least some of what I am doing. Just thought I'd throw in my two cents. -- -- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu) I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant.
cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) (10/06/87)
In article <1330@houdi.UUCP>, marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > Point two, we keep using the human mind as a tool, to solve problems. > As such, it is not merely a phenomenon, but a means to an end, and is > subject to judgments of its utility for that purpose. Now we can say > whether it is perfect or flawed. Obviously, it is not perfect, since > we often make mistakes when we use it. Score one for Ware. This is true. However, this is not the only use for the human mind. The human mind is also used to imagine fanciful dreams, to love and hate and otherwise feel emotion, and to make value judgement even when there is no real logical reason for choosing option one over option two. So perhaps it can be flawed in one way, but not in others (since it is difficult to say what is flawed in some of these instances). -- -- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu) I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant.
ong@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (10/06/87)
/* Written 1:14 am Oct 3, 1987 by czhj@vax1.UUCP in uiucdcsp:comp.ai */ /* ---------- "Re: Goal of AI: where are we going?" ---------- */ In article <46400008@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> morgan@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >Maybe you should approach it as a scientist, rather than an engineer. Think >... >What AI really ought to be is a >science that studies intelligence, with the goal of understanding it by >rigorous theoretical work, and by empirical study of >systems that appear to have intelligence, whatever that is. The best work >in AI, in my opinion, has this scientific flavor. Then it's up to the >engineers (or society at large) to decide what to do with the knowledge >gained, in terms of constructing practical systems. I wholeheartedly support this idea. I'd go even further however, and say that most "AI" research is a huge waste of time. I liken it to using trial and error methods like those used by Edison which led him to try thousands of possibilities before hitting one that made a good lightbulb. With AI, the problem is infinitely more complicated, and the chance of finding a solution by blind experimentation is nil. On the other hand, if we take an educated approach to the problem, and study 'intelligent' systems, we have a much greater chance of solving the mysteries of the mind. Some of you may remember my postings from last year where I expounded on the virtues of cognitive psychology. After investigating research in this field in more detail, I came up very disillusioned. Here is a field of study in which the soul purpose is to scientifically discover the nature of thought. Even with some very bright people working on these problems, I found that the research left me cold. Paper after paper describe isolated phenomena, then go on to present some absurdly narrow minded theory of how such phenomena could occur. I've reached the conclusion that we cannot study the mind in isolated pieces which we try to put together to form a whole. But rather we have to study the interactions between the pieces in order to learn about the pieces themselves. For example, take vision research. Many papers have been written about edge detection algorithms, possible geometries, and similarly reductionist algorithms for making sense of scenes. I assert that the interplay between the senses and the experiential memory is huge. Further, because of these interactions, no simple approach will ever work well. In fact, what we need is to study the entire set of processes involved in seeing before we can determine how we perceive objects in space. This is but a single example of the complexity of studying such aspects of the mind. I found that virtually every aspect of cognition has such problems. That is, no aspect is isolated! Because of this immensely complex set of interactions, I believe that the connectionist theories are heading in the right direction. However, these theories are somewhat too reductionistic for my tastes as well. I want to understand how the mind works at a high level (if possible). The actual implementation is the easy part. The understanding is the hard part. ---Ted Inoue /* End of text from uiucdcsp:comp.ai */
litow@uwm-cs.UUCP (Dr. B. Litow) (10/06/87)
> > The principal difficulty in cognitive science is that it is in its > infancy. I think that psychology is today where physics was in > Newton's time. And a LOT of "narrow minded" theories came and went in > Newton's time. Including Newton's theories. > > Steve Frysinger Newton's primary contribution in Principia is a method. The method has NOT been modified at its core in the elapsed three centuries. It is still at the basis of all western physical science. Newton understood its importance as V.Arnold has pointed out in his book Geometric Methods in the Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations (Springer). The method is very simple to state: pose and solve differential equations for the phenomena. Prior to anything else in western physics there is this method. In this respect all of quantum mechanics is only a conservative (almost in the sense of logic) extension of rational mechanics. Incidentally rational mechanics was not developed explicitly by Newton. It is a product of the Enlightenment researchers,e.g. the Bernoullis and especially Euler. Underlying the method is something nameless which when it is finally investigated (the time is approaching) will be a decisive element in actually showing what is really conveyed by the adjective "western".
ramarao@umn-cs.UUCP (Bindu Rama Rao) (10/07/87)
Is the Human mind flawed? Can we pass such a judgement without knowing anything about the human mind? Do we really understand how the mind works? Aren't we trying to model the mind because we are in awe of all the power the mind posesses? Is the mind flawed just because humans make decisions based on their emotional involvement? Isn't the mind used for analysis only while emotions play a major part in formulating the final decision? Let's not hastily dismiss the human mind as flawed. -bindu rama rao.
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (10/09/87)
In article <2281@umn-cs.UUCP>, ramarao@umn-cs.UUCP (Bindu Rama Rao) writes: > > Is the Human mind flawed? > > Can we pass such a judgement without knowing anything about the human mind? > > Do we really understand how the mind works? Let's draw an analogy. You are driving an X-Brand car from Pittsburgh to Atlanta and halfway there it bursts into flame. Without knowing how the car works you can conclude it was flawed. Mr X. goes to an employment interview and gets angry or flustered and says something that causes him to be rejected. Without knowing how his mind works you can conclude it was flawed. > Aren't we trying to model the mind because we are in awe of all the > power the mind posesses? Of course we are. But saying the mind is enormously powerful is not contradicted by saying it's not perfect. A car with a big engine is enormously powerful and almost certainly not perfect. > Is the mind flawed just because humans make decisions based on > their emotional involvement? Isn't the mind used for analysis only > while emotions play a major part in formulating the final decision? Factually, we know the mind is flawed because we observe that it does not do what we expect of it. As a hypothesis, we can test the idea that it is flawed because of the action of what we call emotions. As a further hypothesis, we can also test the idea that emotions motivate all human activity. Personally, I like both those hypotheses. Question of definition here: do we agree that emotion, reason, consciousness, will, etc., are all functions of the mind? > Let's not hastily dismiss the human mind as flawed. Who's dismissing it? I know my car is flawed, but I can't afford to dismiss it. I'm not dismissing my mind either. How could I? :-) M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
khl@usl (Calvin K. H. Leung) (10/10/87)
In article <1270@isl1.ri.cmu.edu> cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) writes: > I do believe that there is some mechanism to minds (or perhaps a variety of > them). One reason why I am interested in AI (perhaps this is very Cog. Sci. > of me, actually) is because I think perhaps it will help elucidate the ways > in which the human mind works, and thus increase our understanding of human > behaviour. I agree with the idea that there must be some mechanisms that our minds are using. But the different reasoning methods (proba- bilistic reasoning, for instance) that we are studying in the area of AI are not the way one reasons: we never use the Bayes' Theorem in our thinking process. The use of those reasoning methods, in my point of view, will never help increase our under- standing of human behavior. Because our minds just don't work that way. Calvin K H Leung -- Calvin K. H. Leung USL P.O. Box 41821 Lafayette, LA 70504 khl@usl.usl.edu.csnet 318-237-7128
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (10/10/87)
In article <1368@houdi.UUCP>, marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > In article <2281@umn-cs.UUCP>, ramarao@umn-cs.UUCP (Bindu Rama Rao) writes: > > > > Is the Human mind flawed? > > > > Can we pass such a judgement without knowing anything about the human mind? > > > > Do we really understand how the mind works? > The human mind is definitely flawed, very fortunately. I do not see how an intelligent entity can fail to be flawed if it has only the computing power of the universe available. I define intelligence as the ability to deal with a _totally unforeseen situation_. It is easy to give examples in which the amount of information needed to effect a logical decision would require more memory than the size of the universe permits. Therefore, dealing with such a situation _requires_ that such extralogical procedures as intuition, judgment, somewhat instinctive reactions, etc., must be involved. That is not to say that one cannot find out that certain factors are of lesser importance. But the decision that these less important factors can or should be ignored is still a matter of judgment. Therefore, an intelligent treatment of a problem of even moderate complexity requires that nonrational procedures must be used. These cannot be correct; at most we can determine in _some_ cases that they are not too bad. In other cases, we can only hope that we are not too far off. There is no "rational" intelligent entity for moderately difficult problems! -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (ARPA or UUCP) or hrubin@purccvm.bitnet
montgome@udel.EDU (Kevin Montgomery) (10/10/87)
>> In article <2281@umn-cs.UUCP>, ramarao@umn-cs.UUCP (Bindu Rama Rao) writes: >> > Is the Human mind flawed? C'mon guys, lighten up for a sec. Flawed implies a defect from it's design. Therefore, if someone's mind doesn't do what it's designed to do (namely help keep the organism alive, etc), THEN it's flawed (ex: schizos, manics, etc). A "normal" person does NOT have a flawed mind, just an illogical one. What do you expect when the old brain (producing emotions, feelings and the like) is still in the design? So the $64K answer is: no, the mind is not (usually) flawed, but it is illogical. Is having an illogical mind a problem? Hell no! It's what keeps organisms going- drives for self-preservation, procreation, etc. While striving to be logical IS (i feel) a noble aspiration, there's no way to totally shut out something like emotions so deeply ingrained into the mental architecture. (one may even argue that if we were to consider all things logically, then civilization would die out rather quickly, but i'm not gonna touch that one) At any rate, if you want to do some neato cognitive modelling stuff, then you've got to (eventually) incorporate the functions of the old brain (illogic) with the logical processes we normally consider. If you're gonna do some neato expert system stuff involving pure logic, then don't worry about it. `kay? `kay. -- Kevin Desperately-trying-to-get-into-Stanford Montgomery
krulwich@gator..arpa (Bruce Krulwich) (10/11/87)
In article <1368@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >Factually, we know the mind is flawed because we observe that it does >not do what we expect of it. If I expect my car to take me to the moon and it doesn't, is it flawed?? No, rather my expectation of it is wrong. Similarly, we shouldn't say that the mind is flawed until we're sure that our definition of "intelligence" is perfect. > As a hypothesis, we can test the idea >that it is flawed because of the action of what we call emotions. Why do you assume that emotions are a flaw?? Just maybe emotions are at the core of intellegence, and logic is just a side issue. >As >a further hypothesis, we can also test the idea that emotions motivate >all human activity. Personally, I like both those hypotheses. If you think that emotions motivate all human activity, why do you dismiss emotions as a flaw in the mind?? It seems to me that human activity is a lot more "intelligent" than any AI system as of yet. >Question of definition here: do we agree that emotion, reason, >consciousness, will, etc., are all functions of the mind? Yes, and not necessarily "flawed" ones. Bruce Krulwich ARPA: krulwich@yale.arpa Being true heros, or krulwich@cs.yale.edu they lept into action. Bitnet: krulwich@yalecs.bitnet (Bullwinkle) UUCP: {harvard, seismo, ihnp4}!yale!krulwich (Any B-CC'ers out there??)
gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) (10/22/87)
In article <15196@topaz.rutgers.edu> josh@topaz.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes: >In Western thought it has been realized at long and arduous last that >the appeal to authority is fallacious. Tell that to the judge. This understanding of Western social practices seems weak given its confusion of intellectual idealism with social reality. Authority counts for far more than rationality or science. >Experiment works; the real world exists; Not true all the time - scientific method is flawed, as any sophomore who's studied epistemology can tell you. The modern command over nature is due, not to a slavish and unimagintive application of statistical inference and hypothetico-deductive reasoning, but to an engagement which combines rigour, rationality (self-critical candour) and imagination. This view of reality and experiment is very dated and it's time some of us ignored the off-the-cuff dogma of our chemistry and physics teachers (rarely real people :-) ) and caught up with modern Western thinking (and eternal practice). > objective standards can be applied. Even to people. They must be proved objective first though, so this argument is empty. What is an objective standard? I admit the value of the idea, otherwise our concepts of morality would be weakened. But the term is not to be used lightly. "flawed" is not an objective standard, though it can be defined idiosyncratically and after the fact to correspond to standards which are. Calling the human mind "flawed" in essence could be being motivated by a lack of fit with an AI model - now shouldn't this lack of fit suggest the model is flawed and not the human mind? Note that at the end of the day, the unimaginative application of any method is less important than the people who are convinced, and remain convinced over the rest of their life. Science and convincement are not one and the same, and it is the latter which guides human life. >It is true that most AI researchers "believe that >the mind is a machine", but it seems that the alternative is to >suggest that human intelligence has a supernatural mechanism. No, Mind is extra/para-natural - we cannot observe it as we do nature, and thus the values of science do not apply. More spiritual and humanist approaches do. By the way, as a historan originally, I would hold that humanist and spiritual views of human nature have dominated, and continue to dominate, the public thinking on Man. Reductionist mechanical scientists appear to be an ugly minority who have little *respectful* social contact outside their own self-congratulating cliques. >The anti-scientific mentality is an emotional >excuse used to avoid thinking clearly. It would be much more honest >to say "I don't want to think, it's too hard work." There are other interpretations of this. I wouldn't use, for example, predicate logic (and thus Frames, semantic nets, etc), to describe the design process, not because it is too hard, but because it becomes a cretinous tool when describing such a rich human phenomenum. Thus I am not avoiding hard work; I am avoiding *fruitless* work. Many workers in AI would do better if they stopped trying to cram the world into an impoverished computational representation and actually explored the rich range of non-computable knowledge representations (e.g. the Novel, the painting, psalms, the monographs of the liberal arts). If this is all too inaccessible to their critical abilities, they could at least read some of the established works of scholarship on semantics (e.g. Lyons' 2 volumes). >The champions of irrationality, mysticism, and superstition have >emotional problems which bias their cognitive processes. Their minds are flawed This is very sad. I think the author is missing something, somewhere. I cannot believe that those who share a same higher view of humanity are misleading themselves. What does the author's friends think? -- Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Ben Line Building, Edinburgh, EH1 1TN JANET: gilbert@uk.ac.hw.hci ARPA: gilbert%hci.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ..{backbone}!mcvax!ukc!hwcs!hci!gilbert
gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) (10/22/87)
In article <1368@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >Factually, we know the mind is flawed because we observe that it does >not do what we expect of it. I expect my car to fetch my shoes I observe that my car does not fetch my shoes My car is flawed. I expect my dog to not move from the fire when I come to put more coal on I observe that my dog is moving when I come to put more coal on My dog is flawed I expect the word foliage to mean any "leaves" on trees shrubs I observe that people in New England use the word to mean Autumn leaves People in New England are flawed Wow! This must be logic we're seeing :-) Now for an argument based only on my understanding of what it is to convince: We can expect nothing untoward from something we do not fully understand at the level of a predictive model. I understand my car, I do not understand dogs or New Englanders. -- Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Ben Line Building, Edinburgh, EH1 1TN JANET: gilbert@uk.ac.hw.hci ARPA: gilbert%hci.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ..{backbone}!mcvax!ukc!hwcs!hci!gilbert
mdl@cci632.UUCP (Michael Liss) (10/26/87)
In article <285@usl> khl@usl.usl.edu.UUCP (Calvin K. H. Leung) writes: >I agree with the idea that there must be some mechanisms that our >minds are using. But the different reasoning methods (proba- >bilistic reasoning, for instance) that we are studying in the >area of AI are not the way one reasons: we never use the Bayes' >Theorem in our thinking process. The use of those reasoning >methods, in my point of view, will never help increase our under- >standing of human behavior. Because our minds just don't work >that way. I read an interesting article recently which had the title: "If AI = The Human Brain, Cars Should Have Legs" The author's premise was that most of our other machines that mimic human abilites do not do so through strict copying of our physical processes. What we have done, in the case of the automobile, is to make use of wheels and axles and the internal combustion engine to produce a transportation device which owes nothing tothe study of human legs. In the case of AI, he state that artificial intelligence should not be assumed to be the equivalent of human intelligence and thus, the disection of the human mind's functionality will not necessarily yield a solution to AI. He closes with the following: "And I suspect it [AI] will develop without reference to natural intelligence and should so develop. And I am sure it will not replace human thinking any more than the autombile replaces human walking." -- ================================================================================ "Why am I so soft in the middle when the rest of my life is so hard?" -- P.Simon Mike Liss {rochester, ritcv}!cci632!mdl (716) 482-5000
murrayw@utai.UUCP (10/29/87)
In article <2072@cci632.UUCP> mdl@cci632.UUCP (Michael Liss) writes: . . >I read an interesting article recently which had the title: >"If AI = The Human Brain, Cars Should Have Legs" > >The author's premise was that most of our other machines that mimic human >abilites do not do so through strict copying of our physical processes. > >What we have done, in the case of the automobile, is to make use of wheels and >axles and the internal combustion engine to produce a transportation device >which owes nothing tothe study of human legs. > >In the case of AI, he state that artificial intelligence should not be >assumed to be the equivalent of human intelligence and thus, the disection of >the human mind's functionality will not necessarily yield a solution to AI. > "THE USE AND MISUSE OF ANALOGIES" Transporation (or movement) is not a property unique to human beings. If one were to refine the goal better, the analogy flips sides. If the goal is to design a device that can climb rocky hills it may have something like legs. If the goal is to design a device that can fly it may have something like wings. (Okay so there not the same type of wings, but what about streamlining?) AS I UNDERSTAND IT, one goal of AI is to design systems that perform well in areas that the human brain performs well. Current computer systems can do things (like add numbers) better than we can. I would not suggest creating an A.I. system for generating telephone bills! However, don't tell me that understanding the human brain doesn't tell me anything about natural language! The more analogies I see the less I like them. However, they seem handy to convince the masses of completely false doctrines. e.g. "Jesus accepted food and shelter from his friends, so sign over your paycheck to me." (I am waiting Michael) 8-) Murray Watt (murrayw@utai.toronto.edu) The views of my colleagues do not necessarily reflect my opinions.