scott@swatsun (Jay Scott) (10/11/87)
Here's how I think about it: "Flawed" I take to mean "not-good in some particular respect." And "good" does not have a fixed, absolute meaning. If you ask, "Is this rock good?" I have to reply, "What for?" It may be good used as a piece of gravel but bad used as a gemstone! So in the same way, you may ask "Is the human mind flawed?" I answer "Depends. Is there something you wanted to use one for?" If you think minds just are, then "flawed" doesn't apply (neither does "perfect"). But if you want to use a mind to, say, do math, you're likely to be annoyed at its tendency to make mistakes--a flaw, for your purposes. -- Your opinion may vary. I can only define words as I use them, not as you may. Jay Scott ...bpa!swatsun!scott
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (10/12/87)
In article <17489@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, krulwich@gator..arpa (Bruce Krulwich) writes: > 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. There's a subtlety here. Your car is obviously not designed to go to the moon; it won't come near trying. But I suggested that your car should take you "from Pittsburgh to Atlanta" without bursting into flame. That's not an unreasonable expectation, because, though it probably wasn't designed for those particular roads, cars like it usually do it successfully. Similarly, if I usually go through interviews without "bursting into flame," I expect to be able to do it regularly, and if once I screw up, I have to conclude that there is a flaw somewhere. > > 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. Note, please. I did not "assume that emotions are a flaw." First, I argued that there was a flaw, and though that argument was challenged, my reliance on that argument is obviously "why" I went on to the next step. Second, I obviously did not "assume" anything about emotions; I offered a hypothesis about emotions. "Why" I offered that hypothesis is that it was suggested by an article I quoted: == > Is the mind flawed just because humans make decisions based on == > their emotional involvement? .... > 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. Clearly I did not dismiss anything. Quoting again from my article: == > 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? :-) Without trying to embarrass anybody, I would like to ask whether Mr. Krulwich thought he was answering logically, and, if so, whether his expectation that he could do so was any more reasonable than the hypothetical expectation that his car could take him to the moon. I think we try to do things with our minds that they can not successfully do. Even if the flaw is in the expectation, the expectation is created by the mind, so to argue that the flaw is not in the mind requires great subtlety. (I am sure many readers will find my argument flawed.) I might suggest that Mr. Krulwich answered more emotionally than logically, but that statement would not only introduce "emotion" as an undefined term, but also invite us to "dismiss" what seem to be some vital mental processes. Just as physicians accept the human body for what it is, without embarrassment, so should we accept the human mind. Physically, all human bodies are different, and none are perfect. Why then should anyone insist that the mind is unflawed? M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
caasi@sdsu.UUCP (Richard Caasi) (10/12/87)
If the human mind was flawless we wouldn't be debating this issue.
To determine how flawed the human mind is we need to first define the
characteristics of a flawless or perfect mind. Any suggestions?
It certainly shouldn't have the limitations of Turing machines, that
is, it should be able to "solve" non-computable functions non-
algorithmically. Given perfect information as input, its output
should be likewise perfect, right? Or perhaps its output should
always be perfect regardless of how imperfect or incomplete its
inputs are. (Whcih violates the CS law of Garbage In Garbage Out)
Drawing an analogy with ideal operational amplifiers
in electronics, the perfect mind can be characterized by infinite
memory, zero learning time, zero search and recall time, sensory
perception with infinite bandwidth (flat frequency response from
negative infinity to positive infinity), zero computation time, and
knowledge of future inputs, etc., etc. (What do we have - God?)
Question: Does such a mind exist or is nothing perfect in the real
world? kludge@pyr.gatech.EDU (Scott Dorsey) (10/12/87)
If a thing is not perfect, it is flawed def. flaw
The human mind is a thing if it weren't, we wouldn't
talk about it
Nothing is perfect My mother said this
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The human mind is flawed
QED.
--
Scott Dorsey Kaptain_Kludge
SnailMail: ICS Programming Lab, Georgia Tech, Box 36681, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
Internet: kludge@pyr.gatech.edu
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!gitpyr!kludgeijd@camcon.uucp (Ian Dickinson) (10/23/87)
in article <2809@sdsu.UUCP>, caasi@sdsu.UUCP (Richard Caasi) says: > > If the human mind was flawless we wouldn't be debating this issue. > To determine how flawed the human mind is we need to first define the > characteristics of a flawless or perfect mind. Any suggestions? My mind does exactly what I want it to do. I like to be emotive, to be able to intuit, guess, make mistakes and learn from them, do silly things to let off steam, laugh at obscure jokes etc. All of these abilities could be regarded as flaws in a device which aspired to mechanistic perfection. But I like my mind - for me it _is_ perfect (although maybe not so to another person). > Drawing an analogy with ideal operational amplifiers > in electronics, .... Hum. I can't think of a machine that I would like to use as an analogy here. One problem is that we know that the individual components of the brain (perhaps more analogous to an electronic device) have pretty awful performance characteristics, but the *mind* as a whole has characteristics that no machine in existence today can begin to match. So, whilst I have no doubt that we can create technology that does improve on the metrics listed in the posting (indeed I am actively involved in helping to do so), I *do* doubt that this will get us much nearer to a mindful machine. > Question: Does such a mind exist or is nothing perfect in the real > world? Ultimately, reality is all we have. End of problem. -- Ian Dickinson Cambridge Consultants Ltd, AI group (0223) 358855 [U.K.] uucp: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!camcon!ijd or: ijd%camcon.uucp >> Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own (surprise!). << >> To dance is to live, but the dance of life requires many strange steps <<