Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!houdi!marty1
From: marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Is the human mind flawed?
Message-ID: <1370@houdi.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Oct-87 11:11:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: houdi.1370
Posted: Mon Oct 12 11:11:38 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Oct-87 06:57:09 EDT
References: <178@usl> <549@csm9a.UUCP> <270@uwslh.UUCP> <15196@topaz.rutgers.edu> <17489@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 67
Summary: Examples of flawed usage of the human mind

In article <17489@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, krulwich@gator..arpa (Bruce Krulwich) writes:
> In article <1368@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes:
> >Factually, we know the mind is flawed because we observe that it does
> >not do what we expect of it.
> 
> If I expect my car to take me to the moon and it doesn't, is it
> flawed??  No, rather my expectation of it is wrong.  Similarly, we
> shouldn't say that the mind is flawed until we're sure that our
> definition of "intelligence" is perfect.

There's a subtlety here.  Your car is obviously not designed to go to
the moon; it won't come near trying.  But I suggested that your car
should take you "from Pittsburgh to Atlanta" without bursting into
flame.  That's not an unreasonable expectation, because, though it
probably wasn't designed for those particular roads, cars like it
usually do it successfully.  Similarly, if I usually go through
interviews without "bursting into flame," I expect to be able to do it
regularly, and if once I screw up, I have to conclude that there is a
flaw somewhere.

> > As a hypothesis, we can test the idea
> >that it is flawed because of the action of what we call emotions.  
> 
> Why do you assume that emotions are a flaw??  Just maybe emotions are
> at the core of intellegence, and logic is just a side issue.

Note, please.  I did not "assume that emotions are a flaw."  First, I
argued that there was a flaw, and though that argument was challenged,
my reliance on that argument is obviously "why" I went on to the next
step.  Second, I obviously did not "assume" anything about emotions; I
offered a hypothesis about emotions.  "Why" I offered that hypothesis
is that it was suggested by an article I quoted:

== > Is the mind flawed just because humans make decisions based on
== > their emotional involvement? ....

> If you think that emotions motivate all human activity, why do you
> dismiss emotions as a flaw in the mind??  It seems to me that human
> activity is a lot more "intelligent" than any AI system as of yet.

Clearly I did not dismiss anything.  Quoting again from my article:

== > 	Let's not hastily dismiss the human mind as flawed.
== 
== Who's dismissing it?  I know my car is flawed, but I can't afford to
== dismiss it.  I'm not dismissing my mind either.  How could I?  :-)

Without trying to embarrass anybody, I would like to ask whether Mr. 
Krulwich thought he was answering logically, and, if so, whether his
expectation that he could do so was any more reasonable than the
hypothetical expectation that his car could take him to the moon.  I
think we try to do things with our minds that they can not successfully
do.  Even if the flaw is in the expectation, the expectation is created
by the mind, so to argue that the flaw is not in the mind requires
great subtlety.  (I am sure many readers will find my argument flawed.)

I might suggest that Mr. Krulwich answered more emotionally than
logically, but that statement would not only introduce "emotion" as an
undefined term, but also invite us to "dismiss" what seem to be some
vital mental processes.  Just as physicians accept the human body for
what it is, without embarrassment, so should we accept the human mind.
Physically, all human bodies are different, and none are perfect.  Why
then should anyone insist that the mind is unflawed?

M. B. Brilliant					Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520	(201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733	ihnp4!houdi!marty1