Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!mephisto!ncar!boulder!ccncsu!longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU!ld231782
From: ld231782@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Lawrence Detweiler)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets
Subject: Re: intrinsic vs. extrinsic rules (Was: the baby bootstrap)
Message-ID: <5423@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>
Date: 21 Mar 90 22:32:00 GMT
References: <744@telesoft.com> <1990Mar8.125506.11913@newcastle.ac.uk> <725@berlioz.nsc.com> <7181@gelatinosa.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: news@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU
Reply-To: ld231782@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Lawrence Detweiler)
Organization: Engineering College, Colorado State University
Lines: 78

There seems to be enough public interest in this thread to justify
another posting.

miken@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Michael N. Nitabach) in
<7181@gelatinosa.ai.mit.edu>:

>>In short, it may be possible to have intelligence with nothing but
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>simple rules like Hebb's that depend only on input.  This is a hopeful
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>sentiment for the future of machine thought.
>
>I find it a depressing "sentiment" that workers in the area of AI can still
>maintain such absolutely behavioristic positions.  It is clear that the
>development of intelligence depends on *both* interactions with the environ-
>ment, and *many* innate structures of the mind.
[...]
>Virtually all psychologists in academia have rightly discarded
>pure behaviorism--the position that the *only* innate capacities necessary
>for the achievement of intelligence are stimulus-stimulus and action-
>consequence association--as a viable view of cognitive development.


It is clear that some combination of mechanisms in the brain allows it
to think.  My speculations apply to intelligence outside of the brain,
whereas behaviorism makes assertions about its role INSIDE (the last
time I checked,  psychology was talking about humans).  Admittedly I
have cited biological examples in my favor suggestive of an
environmentally dominant role in the development of intelligent behavior
(for example, the development of the cat's visual system).  However,
even if they are wholly inappropriate and misapplied it does not condemn
the speculation, because its central idea transcends them.

(I find it depressing that these views could be misconstrued to be
associated with behaviorism and furthermore that conventional wisdom has
proclaimed behaviorism dead.  I have no personal affinity for nor
adherence to this ideology, but I see a distressing trend and tendency
in conventional thought to ridicule any innocent prod to think by
identifying it with some other supposedly manifestly erroneous view.)

cdh@praxis.co.uk (Chris Hayward) in <4972@newton.praxis.co.uk>:
>As babies become humans (a long process :-) their behaviour expands,
>they build on acquired knowledge and world-understanding. But that
>behaviour is still directed towards being rested (if you don't believe
>this, try staying awake for a couple of days!), fed, comfortable, and
>then intellectually satisfied. 

Let us suppose the "satisfaction-to-curiosity" is the most important of
these, because it is the rule that governs useful emerging behavior
beyond the rudimentary ones.

>The key point, I think, is that if we include *curiosity* as a primary
>motivator, everything else falls into place. It provides the bootstrap.
>
>But how will we put it into a neural-network?

What if curiosity is a natural consequence of the wiring?  It is hard to
imagine any global overseeing mechanism that decides what is interesting
and what isn't.  Because curiosity is arguably the most important aspect
in learning, my suggestion that intelligence arises naturally from the
interactions of electricity (stimulii) and wires (the brain) does not
seem so radical.

dar@telesoft.com (David Reisner) in <744@telesoft.com>:

>It is an obviously self-serving view. If you WANT machine thought to be
>possible or be able to replace human thought (becuase you like the idea,
>it would be useful, its interesting, or you get along better with machines
>than with people), then this viewpoint makes things easier.

Humans think, humans are machines, therefore machines think.  My views
naturally assume that the duplication of thought outside the brain is
feasible (presumably that is the very reason for the existence of this
forum!).  It the view that our intelligence is sacred that is literally
the self-serving view!  To suppose that some other entity is capable of
duplicating humankind's main claim to fame is as disheartening to think
we descended from apes!  Then again, imitation is the sincerest form of
flattery.