Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!NSTN.NS.CA!cs.dal.ca!vanadis
From: vanadis@cs.dal.ca (Jose Castejon-Amenedo)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What Has Traditional AI Accomplished
Message-ID: <1990Oct28.172015.26727@cs.dal.ca>
Date: 28 Oct 90 17:20:15 GMT
References: <1232@ucl-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Lines: 30

Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What Has Traditional AI Accomplished
References: <1232@ucl-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Keywords: Penrose


	In article 6314 G.Joly@uk.ac.ucl.cs says:

>> From: vanadis@cs.dal.ca (Jose Castejon-Amenedo)
>> But then again, perhaps AI and natural intelligence are just
>> hierarchies of brute force techniques, Penrose permitting.

> Yeh to the former, nay to the latter! As for Roger Penrose, he really
> has very little to offer the former.

	My greetings to you, fellah. While I tend to agree with you, I
do not think that Penrose's arguments can be dismissed just like that.
It seems to be certain that the region where QM and Classical
Mechanics should overlap is not well understood, and some people even
say that a new theory must be developed to account for it. There might
exist some non-local phenomena in this regime (phenomena that are
outside the scope of present theories, for obvious reasons) essential
for explaining self-consciousness, for example. The idea that a
gravity theory that works at Planck scales might be a fundamental
ingredient to explain intelligence seems to be more far-fetched, but
then again, who knows?

Jose Castejon-Amenedo
vanadis@cs.dal.ca