Xref: utzoo comp.ai:8391 comp.ai.philosophy:503
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!munnari.oz.au!brolga!ggm
From: ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (George Michaelson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Bandwidth of the Brain
Message-ID: <1991Jan14.235142.7849@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au>
Date: 14 Jan 91 23:51:42 GMT
References: <37618@cup.portal.com> <2755@infinet.UUCP> 	<1991Jan9.150033.14718@cs.umn.edu> <2015@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> 	<26250@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <16378@venera.isi.edu> <JMC.91Jan14145958@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Prentice Computer Centre, The University of Queensland, Australia.
Lines: 38

[re-blocked to suit interpolated comments]

jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>There is no argument that any one of them can't possibly work.  

...You mean AI workers don't disagree about the relative merits of
their model in pejorative terms? amazing! 

Outside of the field, I suspect scepticism remains that ANY of them can
possibly work.

>Therefore, AI research is a race among the various approaches.  

- a Red Queens race perhaps? 

>The arguments about metaphor are a game for
>non-participants in the actual work.

In my own case, undenyably true!

I think they also point to the weakness of available models. If nothing
else, its an overspill of ideas from the lofty heights of the castle
to the rude huts of the commoners below. When the metaphors start
becoming testable and/or (dis)provable theorems, then things will be a
little more solid perhaps.  

If you're asserting that behind this peat-bog of metaphors lies a more
solid ground of theory I'll sink back into the mud from whence I came.
Like all creatures of the (CS) slime, I tend to remain skeptical of
these (AI) attempts to walk on solid land.

	-George
-- 
	G.Michaelson
Internet: G.Michaelson@cc.uq.oz.au                     Phone: +61 7 365 4079
  Postal: George Michaelson, the Prentice Centre,
          The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD Australia 4072.