Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!apple!well!nagle
From: nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: AI - the real problem
Message-ID: <23649@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: 17 Mar 91 05:25:34 GMT
References: <1991Mar14.172456.11384@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Lines: 29

dailey@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu (Chris Dailey) writes:

>I would guess that we are comprised of a heirarchy of intelligence
>levels.  There are probably well defined communication links between
>each level, and each level responds accordingly to the communications
>it receives from other levels.

     Minsky calls this the "A-brains and B-brains" theory in his
"Society of Mind".  It's a conjecture at this point.  Sensory
data is not necessarily filtered through autonomous lower levels.
In an evolved system, there's no real reason to expect clean
interfaces and structured design, and good reason not to expect it.
But it's a useful way to think about the problem.

     It's worth recognizing that the "higher levels" only have to
deal with the things the lower levels get wrong.  More on the
implications of this later.

     One major reason for working bottom-up is that there is a
strong possibility that the "upper layers" (or the "more recently
evolved layers") use many of the same components evolved to make
the lower levels work.  The rapidity with which evolution proceeded
from the lowest mammals to the highest to date indicates this is 
a likely hypothesis.  So bottom-up work may lead to development of
enough of a parts catalog that building the higher levels can be
tackled with better options than we face at our present level of
ignorance.

					John Nagle