Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!uwmcsd1!vanvleck!uwvax!uwslh!lishka From: lishka@uwslh.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Goal of AI: where are we going? Message-ID: <270@uwslh.UUCP> Date: Wed, 30-Sep-87 13:42:21 EDT Article-I.D.: uwslh.270 Posted: Wed Sep 30 13:42:21 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 2-Oct-87 06:41:13 EDT References: <178@usl> <549@csm9a.UUCP> Reply-To: lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison, State Hygiene Lab Lines: 101 ***Warning: FLAME ON*** In article <549@csm9a.UUCP> bware@csm9a.UUCP (Bob Ware) writes: >>We all admit that the human mind is not flawless. Bias decisions... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The expression "we all" does not apply to me, at very least. Some of us (at least myself)like to believe that the human mind should not be considered to be either flawed or flawless...it only "is." I feel that making a judgement on whether or not everyone admits that the human mind is flawed happens to be a biased decision on the above net-reader's part. Realize that not everyone has the same views as the above... >>...can be made due to emotional problems, for instance. ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is this statement to be read as "emotional problems can cause bias decisions, which are flaws in the human mind?" If it does, then I heartily disagree, because I once again feel that emotional problems and/or bias decisions are not indicative of flaws in the human mind...see above for my reasons. > >The above has been true for all of recorded history and remains true >for almost everyone today. While almost everyone's mind is flawed due ^^^^^^^^^^ >to emotional problems, new data is emerging that indicates the mind can... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Again, I don't feel that my mind is "flawed" by emotional problems. To me that seems to be a very "Western" (and I am making a rather stereotyped remark here) method of thinking. As I have grown up with parents who have Buddhist values and beliefs, I think that making a value judgement such as "human minds are flawed because of..." should be indicated as such...there is no way to prove that sort of "fact." For all I know or care, the human mind is neither perfect nor flawed; it just "is," and I don't wish to make sweeping generalities such as the above. There are many other views of the mind out there, and I recommend looking into *all* Religious views as well as *all* Scientific views before even attempting a statement like the above (which would easily take more than a lifetime). >...be "fixed" in that regard. To see what I am referring to, read L Ron ^^^^^ >Hubbard's book on "Dianetics". To me this seems to be one of many problems in A.I.: the assumption that the human mind can be looked at as a machine, and can be analyzed as having flaws or not, and subsequently be fixed or not. That sort of thinking in my opinion belongs more in ones Personal Philosophy and probably should not be used in a "Scientific" (ugghh, another hard-to-pin-down word) argument, because it is damned hard to prove, if it is able to be proven at all. I feel that the mind just "is," and one cannot go around making value judgements on another's thoughts. Who gives anyone else the right to say a person's mind is "flawed?" To me that kind of judgement can only be made by the person "owning" the mind (i.e. who is thinking and communicating with it!), and others should leave well enough alone. Now I realize that this brings up arguments in other fields (such as Psychology), but I feel A.I. should try and move away from these sort of value judgements. A comment: why don't A.I. "people" use the human mind as a model, for better or for worse, and not try to label it as "flawed" or "perfect?" In the first place, it is like saying that something big (like the U.S. Government) is "flawed;" this kind of thing can only be proven under *certain*conditions*, and is unlikely to hold for all possible "states" that the world can be in. In the second place, making that kind of judgement would seem to be fruitless given all that we *do*not* know about the human brain/mind/soul. It seems to me to be like saying "hmmmm, those damned quarks are fundamentally flawed", or "neuronal activity is primarily flawed in the lipid bilayer membrane." I feel that we as humans just do not know diddley about the world around us, and to say it is flawed is a naive statement. Why not just look at the human mind/brain as something that has evolved and existed over time, and therefore may be a good model for A.I. techniques UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES? A lot less people would be offended... ***FLAME*OFF*** Sorry if the above offends anyone...but the previous remarks offended me enough to send a followup message around the world. If one is going to make remarks based on very personal opinions, try to indicate that they are such, and please remember that not everyone thinks the way you do. Of course, pretty much everything I said above is a personal opinion, and I don't presume that even one other person thinks the same way as I do (but it would be nice to know that others think similarily ;-). Disclaimer: the above views are my thoughts only, and do not reflect the views of my employer, although there is eveidence that my cockatiels are controlling my thoughts !!! ;-) -Chris -- Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu \{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka