Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!rosevax!rose3!starfire!merlyn
From: merlyn@starfire.UUCP (Brian Westley)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: (Where should we go...) How to get there?
Message-ID: <164@starfire.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Oct-87 11:41:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: starfire.164
Posted: Mon Oct  5 11:41:48 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Oct-87 23:17:38 EDT
References: <178@usl> <46400008@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <493@vax1.UUCP>
Organization: Starfire Consultings Services, Mpls., MN
Lines: 29
Summary: Might work, might not

Ted Inoue writes:
> In article <46400008@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> morgan@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> >What AI really ought to be is a
> >science that studies intelligence, with the goal of understanding it by
> >rigorous theoretical work, and by empirical study of
> >systems that appear to have intelligence, whatever that is.
> ....
> On the other hand, if we take an educated approach to the problem, and study
> 'intelligent' systems, we have a much greater chance of solving the mysteries
> of the mind...
> 
> ---Ted Inoue

This might work, but I would compare your method (understand the human mind
first, then mimic it via computer) to be similar to early heavier-than-air
experiments.  Birds were the only working model, but we never got off the
ground until we stopped building airplanes that flapped their wings.

Intelligent computers will probably be as different from the human mind as
747's are from hummingbirds.  They will both 'think', but in radically
different ways.

Of course, I could be wrong, so both methods should be explored.





Merlyn LeRoy