rpb0804@venus.tamu.edu (BATES, ROBERT PATRICK) (03/25/91)
OK - I knew I'd open a can of worms when I jumped in like that, but SHEESH!
To clarify a few points, for Richard:
I personally do believe that we have been granted much more mental capacity
than we are currently using as a species at large. How else do you think we
have basically survived the past few thousand years without any real drastic
changes known to date? I also believe that until recently we had hit a point
at which we required no further evolution, mentally. We have, to OUR
knowledge, hit the top of the mental ladder on this planet, and there are no
real mental challenges left, other than those that we create for ourselves. I
think that evolution is still in evidence; however, I believe that homo sapiens
is currently out of the picture until some environmental stress causes it to be
otherwise. If you were referring to the mention of us not catching up with
ourselves yet, I simply meant that we haven't technologically caught up with
our desires... yet...
I also admit that I am only a recent changeover to a CompSci degree - I have
had some experience with computers before (for c. 8 years), but no real
exposure to NN or AI in specific. I just wanted to toss some ideas from my
view in to see how they'd survive (CHOKE, CHOKE!). Granted, I have no feel for
what has actually been researched or done, but I think that once the technology
has caught up with what we want it to do, we could model the multi-billion cell
brain in a multi-billion "chip" computer that would be able to handle all the
functions that the brain can.
On the note of parallel processing, wouldn't true multitasking and dedicated
"systems" in this supercomputer take care of the massive parallelism that some
think would be necessary for AI?
It may not be possible now, but then again, neither was the microcomputer some
40-50 years ago...
Roberto................RPB0804@TAMVENUS
Naivety - virtue or vice?reh@wam.umd.edu (Richard E. Huddleston) (03/26/91)
RE: ROBERT PATRICK BATES Texas A&M University
"My View of Intelligence"
Robert says:
>To clarify a few points, for Richard:
> I personally do believe that we have been granted much more mental
>capacity than we are currently using as a species at large. How else do you
>think we have basically survived the past few thousand years without any real
>drastic changes known to date?
The words "been granted" bother me a little. Would you *please* clarify how
you think that came about?
What do you suppose we're doing with that untapped mental capacity, if
eliminating natural enemies, reducing loss due to disease, increasing infant
mortality, improving the health and sanitation of our large population centers
and all the rest doesn't require any brains? All of this has happened rather
recently.
>I also believe that until recently we had hit a point at which we required no
>further evolution, mentally. We have, to OUR knowledge, hit the top of the
>mental ladder on this planet, and there are no real mental challenges left,
>other than those that we create for ourselves. I think that evolution is still
>in evidence; however, I believe that homo sapiens is currently out of the
>picture until some environmental stress causes it to be otherwise.
I would say that solving the problem of people killing people, both in groups
(countries) and individuals is a substantial, and significant, mental
challenge. I don't think this is one "we create for ourselves" -- any more
than learning how to negate the threat of other environmental enemies was a
challenge we created for ourselves.
>If you were referring to the mention of us not catching up with ourselves yet,
>I simply meant that we haven't technologically caught up with our desires...
>yet...
[stuff deleted]
>...but I think that once the technology has caught up with what we want it to
>do, we could model the multi-billion cell brain in a multi-billion "chip"
>computer that would be able to handle all the functions that the brain can.
I would think that a better way to spend our time would be to design a chip
that does -- very, very well -- what we can't do. The partnership would then
double our capability, rather than merely duplicating it. This requires a much
greater understanding of what we do then we seem to possess.
>It may not be possible now, but then again, neither was the microcomputer some
>40-50 years ago...
One thing I think we can count on: the future will be nothing like we might try
to imagine it will be like. What progress can we make today, via a solution
that doesn't create problems for our descendents?
>Roberto................RPB0804@TAMVENUS
>Naivety - virtue or vice?
Depends on the time of day. Hope is a great breakfast -- but a terrible
dinner.
--Richard