Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!WEIZMANN.BITNET!NYSTERN From: NYSTERN@WEIZMANN.BITNET.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: Re: Re: Taking AI models and applying them to biology... Message-ID: <8706290635.AA01441@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Mon, 29-Jun-87 02:35:17 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8706290635.AA01441 Posted: Mon Jun 29 02:35:17 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Jun-87 02:15:22 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 51 Approved: ailist@stripe.sri.com I have two comments to say; a) As far as I understand from the article, Otto Selz has DIED in 1943 at Auschwits (If one takes into account what Auschwits was that period it seems quite logical) thus he couldn't publish his work in 1943 ... If one remembers what were the types of people who died in Auschwits (I.E Jews) and if one takes into account that they expelled from The Universities and Research Institutions from about 1933 (Hitlers election as Germany's prime minister) then the only logical concultion is that He didn't publish his theory after 1933 (since he was banned) 1943-1933=10 years (woow , I made it ...) which means he published his theory before Turing or Shannon published theirs ... WWII was probably the main reason for the lack of knowledge about his work. (Remember that the war was ended 2 years later and the world had enough on his mind than to remember Selz's theory ...) BTW The commentation above isn't based on facts since I know very little about his life and death (I may be wrong and will found out that he died As a top Nazy SS officer due to cancer ... but that possiblity seems redundant to me) b) As far as I know AI is based on Mathematics ans Biology. Both of those Sciences and many of the disciplines adopted by AI scientists were formed a long time ago even without being influenced by AI/computers (in matter of fact up until now the fields of Biology and Computers wasn't combined together when matters of theory comes only as a tool (calculation programs and DNA decoding algorythms) Well to sum up my point I feel that the computer-science field will benefit more from the work of hopfield then any theoretical axiome ... The scince world has become too specific while I believe that combining all forces together instead of working in paralel on the same topic would be more fruitful for the science world and for the world (With one objection that one field should not impose his theory on the other let, 1000 flowers grow together, but TOGETHER). There is a Master grad. in weizmann who has done his thesis in the vision field in the Department of Applied Math, His 'problem' is that his thesis relates to many fields (physics,neuro biology) and not only to Applied Math moreover He has proved emphirically and cited Famous researchers in this field that Math is redundant in this specific field. Ofcourse no one like his thesis in the Math Department ... As far as I know He will have his Master (got above 80 in the oral test) BUT how much will he get about hsi work ? no one knows. His work is great but it doesn't fit into the cateogries of our formal science. There's no (yet) a field named Applied neuro-math or Applied psycho-physics or even Applied neuro-physics. I've brought this story up to show 1) The situation in the science world nowadays 2) to emphesize the trends of science as I see them 3) to back up the notion that Applied Math and AI would benifit alot by examening works of other science fields. I believe that that's all.