Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!oddjob!uwvax!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!bungia!datapg!sewilco
From: sewilco@datapg.DataPg.MN.ORG (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: who else isn't a science
Message-ID: <1010@datapg.DataPg.MN.ORG>
Date: 9 Jun 88 04:13:21 GMT
References: <3c84f2a9.224b@apollo.uucp>
Reply-To: sewilco@datapg.DataPg.MN.ORG (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
Followup-To: comp.ai
Organization: Data Progress, Minneapolis, MN
Lines: 21

In article <3c84f2a9.224b@apollo.uucp> nelson_p@apollo.UUCP (Peter Nelson) writes:
...
>  I don't see why everyone gets hung up on mimicking natural 
>  intelligence.  The point is to solve real-world problems. Make
...
>  etc.  To the extent that we understand natural systems and can use
>  that knowledge, great!   Otherwise, improvise!

The discussion has been zigzagging between this viewpoint and another.  This
is the "thought engineering" side, while others have been trying to define the
"thought science" side.  The "thought science" definition is concerned with
how carbon-based creatures actually think.  The "thought engineering" definition
is concerned with techniques which produce desired results.

There are many cases where engineering has produced solutions which are different
than the definition provided by an existing technique.  Duplicating the motions of
a flying bird or dish-washing human does not directly lead to our present
standards of fixed-wing airplanes and mechanical dishwashers.
-- 
Scot E. Wilcoxon  sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG    {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco
Data Progress 	 UNIX masts & rigging  +1 612-825-2607    uunet!datapg!sewilco