Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!WISDOM.BITNET!eitan From: eitan@WISDOM.BITNET.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: Re: Success of AI Message-ID: <4739@wisdom.BITNET> Date: Sun, 15-Nov-87 08:56:12 EST Article-I.D.: wisdom.4739 Posted: Sun Nov 15 08:56:12 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 25-Nov-87 22:04:25 EST References: <8710280748.AA21340@jade.berkeley.edu> <4357@wisdom.BITNET> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: eitan%H@wiscvm.arpa (Eitan Shterenbaum) Distribution: world Organization: The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot Israel Lines: 87 Approved: ailist@kl.sri.com In article <> honavar@speedy.wisc.edu (A Buggy AI Program) writes: > >In article <4357@wisdom.BITNET> eitan%H@wiscvm.arpa (Eitan Shterenbaum) writes: >> >>Anyway, no one can emulate a system which has no specifications. >>if the neuro-biologists would present them then you'd have something to start >>with. > > I use the term "computer" in a sense somewhat broader than a > Von-Neuman machine. We can, in principle, build machines that ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > incorporate distributed representations, processing and control. > It is not clear what you mean by a "distributed environment lacking > boolean algebra." > The use of fine-grained distributed representations naturally results > in behavior indicative of processes using fuzzy or probabilistic logic. > The goal is, not necessarily to emulate the brain in all its detail: > We can study birds to understand the principles of aerodynamics that > explain the phenomenon of flying and then go on to build an aeroplane > that is very different from a bird but still obeys the same laws of > physics. As for specifications, they can be provided in different > forms and at different levels of detail; Part of the exercise is > to discover such specifications - either by studying actual existing > systems or by analyzing the functions needed at an abstract level to > determine the basic building blocks and how they are to be put > together. > a) You can't understand the laws under which a system works without understanding the structure of the system ( I believe that our intelligence is the result of our brain's structure ) b) The earodynamics example just prooves my point. Only after understanding *WHY* the birds are built in a certain form the researchers would've been able to understand the pronciples. The fact is that Leonardo de Vinci knew more about aerodynamics than the pioneers of flight is acknowlodged to the *research* he has done on birds. It seems to me that many AI scientists disregard 2 facts a- They have no definition of AI b- They disregard the fact that the best way to have more knowledge about a certain phenomennon is to observe and research it. It seems to me that 1) You have no definition for Intelligence. 2) You want to have the rules of Itelligence. 3) Thus you build systems inorder to simulate Intelligence. 4) Since you don't know you're looking for and since you have no basic rules to simulate the intelligence on, you invent your own local definition and rules for Intelligence. 5) Then youtry to mach your results with your expectations of what the results should be. Sometimes it works some time it doesn't. This method reminds me "random sort" I.E The computer has N numbers, It randomly prints them out one by one and then it tries to check whether they are ordered, if not - he does the above again. I hope that you've noticed that the probability that you'd be correct is quite slime ( actually 1/N! ... ) >> >>And last - Computers aren't meta-capable machines they have constraints, >> not every problem has an answer and not every answermakes sense, >> NP problems are the best example. >> > Are you implying that humans are "meta-capable" - whatever that means? > I'm trying to imply that human beings aren't Turing equivalent ... ( not even when compared to a non-determinitstic turing machine ) Correct me if I'm wrong but I do feel that the neuro-biologists chaps are in the right track and that the Computer scientists should combine efforts with them instead of messing around with AI. (I'm not saying that AI isn't usefull, it is, just that it's very little success in Inteligence and a grand success in Artificial artifacts ...) Eitan Shterenbaum Disclaimer - My ideas are mine and only mine ! @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@