Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!amdahl!ames!sdcsvax!net1!todd
From: todd@net1.ucsd.edu (Todd Goodman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Success of AI
Message-ID: <4171@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>
Date: Mon, 26-Oct-87 12:03:26 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.4171
Posted: Mon Oct 26 12:03:26 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Oct-87 23:40:44 EST
References: <1922@gryphon.CTS.COM> <131@glenlivet.hci.hw.ac.uk>
Sender: Unknown@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU
Reply-To: todd@net1.UUCP (Todd Goodman)
Organization: UCSD Network Operations Group
Lines: 24

In article <131@glenlivet.hci.hw.ac.uk> gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
>"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.

Please, please, please give us a bibliography of these works.  In fact a
short summary would be great, along with the reasons that you find them to be 
better than any current models.  Also if you could point out which are at odds
with each and which you feel are "better" than others, then I would be greatly
appreciative.

This isn't a flame about your response to the earlier posting.  I just want to
take a look at the monumental works you're talking about.

				Todd Goodman
				todd@net1.ucsd.edu
				...!{ucbvax|ihnp4}!sdcsvax!net1!todd