Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!hci!gilbert
From: gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Success of AI
Message-ID: <131@glenlivet.hci.hw.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23-Oct-87 09:13:59 EST
Article-I.D.: glenlive.131
Posted: Fri Oct 23 09:13:59 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Oct-87 01:06:08 EST
References: <1922@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Reply-To: gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Scottish HCI Centre
Lines: 86

In article <1922@gryphon.CTS.COM> tsmith@gryphon.CTS.COM (Tim Smith) writes:
(the best posting on this issue I've seen)

>It wasn't until computers came along that there was a
>metaphor for the brain powerful enough to be taken seriously.

Hence the circularity in much AI appeal to cognitive psychology.
As the latter is now riddled with information processing concepts, the
impulsive observer will be quick to conclude from cog. psy. research
that cognition works like a computer. Wrong conclusion - many cognitive
psychologists talk about mind *as if it were* a computer. Likeness,
especially presumed likeness, is not the same as essence, assuming
noumenal objects exist of course.

>There is no reason, in principle, that a very powerful
>digital computer cannot imitate a mind

Apologies for picking up on this, given the writer's (deleted)
qualification and probable sarcasm about arguments of this form.  This
may appear perverse, but what on earth are these arguments of the form
"nothing in principle prevents"? They are used much by the "pure" AI
misanthropes, but I can never find any substance in such arguments.
Which principles? How can we argue from these principles to
possibility/impossibility. After all, is there anything of any genuine
interest to non-logicians which is logically impossible, rather than
semantically contradictory (a married bachelor for example)?

Again, I pick this up because AI zealots reach for this argument all
the time, and it isn't an argument at all.

(PS - no flames on "misanthrope" or "zealot", one can be studying an
AI topic without losing one's humanism or one's sense of moderation.
I am only characterising those who are misanthropic zealots, a specialisation
and not a generalisation.)

>The success rate in AI research (as well as most of cognitive
>science) in the past 20 years is not very encouraging.

Despite all that taxpayers' money :-)

> A better concept of "mind" is what is needed now.

Well said. "Better" concepts related to mind than those found in cog. sci.
already exist. The starting point is the elaboration of the observable human
phenomena which we are attempting to unify within a study of mind. These
phenomena have been studied since the dawn of time. There are many
monumental works of schlarship which unify the phenomena grouped into
well-defined subfields. The only problem for AI workers surveying all
these masterpieces is that none of the authors are committed to
computational models. Indeed, they would no doubt laugh at anyone who
suggested that their work could be reduced to a Turing Machine compatible
notation.

> This is not to say that AI research should halt

But AI research could at least be disciplined to study the existing work
on the phenomena they seek to study. Exploratory, anarchic,
uninformed, self-indulgent research at public expense could be stopped.
(and not just in AI, although I've never seen such a lack of
discipline and scholarship anywhere else outside of popular history
and futorology, neither of which attract public funds).

> or that computers are not useful in studying human
> intelligence. (They are indispensable.)

Yes (no). They have proved useful in many areas of study. They have
never been used at all in others, beacuse they have not been able to
offer anything worthy of attention.

> For one example of this new way of thinking, see the recent book by the
> linguist George Lakoff, entitled "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things."

Does he use computers?

>I believe the great success of AI has been in showing that
>the old dualistic separation of mind and body is totally
>inadequate to serve as a basis for an understanding of human intelligence.

How can you attribute the end of dualism to AI research. This is a
historical statement which should be backed up by references to
specific pieces of work in AI. I doubt that anything emerging from AI
(rather than the disciplines of Cognitive Science)
-- 
   Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Ben Line Building, Edinburgh, EH1 1TN
   JANET:  gilbert@uk.ac.hw.hci    ARPA:   gilbert%hci.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
		UUCP:	..{backbone}!mcvax!ukc!hwcs!hci!gilbert