Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!sri-unix!PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: ``Mind and brain'' mumbo-jumbo
Message-ID: <1290@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Jun-84 08:10:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.1290
Posted: Mon Jun 25 08:10:45 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 03:25:56 EDT
Lines: 27

> From: Michael Dyer <dyer@UCLA-CS.ARPA>
> The task of AI researchers
> is to show how such vague notions CAN be understood computationally,
> not to go around arguing against this simply because such notions
> as "intuition" are so vague as to be computationally useless at
> such at a bs level of discussion.  It's like my postulating the
> notion of "radio" and then looking at each transistor, crystal, wire or
> what-have-you inside the radio, and then saying "THAT part can't be a
> radio; that OTHER part there can't be one either.

Just so!

> From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!band @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
> Is it possible that "intuition" is the word we
> use to explain what cannot be explained more
> formally or logically?

Why do these discussions always degenerate into suggestions of
absolute limits to reason, perception or what not? That the task is
*very* difficult we know, but we should not claim (without proof) that
something *cannot* be done just because we cannot see how it could be
done (within our lifetime...). Reminds me of those old ``if God had
intended man to fly...'' arguments...  Let's replace those ``what
*cannot* be explained'' by ``what we can't yet explain''!

  -- Fernando Pereira
  pereira@sri-ai