Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!well!sierch
From: sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: who else isn't a science
Message-ID: <6225@well.UUCP>
Date: 9 Jun 88 18:34:03 GMT
References: <3c84f2a9.224b@apollo.uucp> <13345@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Reply-To: sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 23


One of the criticisms of AI is that it is too engineering oriented -- iut
is  a field that had its origins in deep questions about intelligence and
automata. Like many fields, the seminal questions remain unanswered, while
Ph.D.s are based on producing Yet Another X-based Theorem Prover/Xprt System/
whatever.

The problem has enormous practival consequences, since practice follows
theory. For instance, despite all the talk about it, why is it that
cognition is mimicked as the basis fro intelligence? What about cellular
intelligence, memory, etc of the immune system? Einstein's "positiona;
and muscular" thinking?

I think that there is, ideally , an interplay between praxis and theory.
But Computer SCIENCE is just that -- or should be -- It has, lamentably,
become an engineering discipline. Just so you knowm, I pay the rent through
the practical application of engineering kbnowledge. But I love to ponder
those unanswered questions. And never mind my typing -- just wait till I
get my backspace key fixed!
-- 
	Michael Sierchio @ SMALL SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS
	2733 Fulton St / Berkeley / CA / 94705     (415) 845-1755

	sierch@well.UUCP	{..ucbvax, etc...}!lll-crg!well!sierch