Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!think!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!BU-CS.BU.EDU!bzs From: bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: The future of AI Message-ID: <8806300425.AA05873@bu-cs.bu.edu> Date: 30 Jun 88 04:25:00 GMT References: <712@inria.UUCP> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 34 Although I don't subscribe to vitalism I'm also not sure that there isn't some middle ground here (other than with those who insist on appealing to purely supernatural events, there's really no where to go from that starting point.) For example, physics has certainly been dabbling in this century with very non-deterministic and, importantly, anti-intuitive concepts such as quantum mechanics. This leads one to ask if the mind is not in many ways a probability machine, learning etc simply varying the probability (sometimes to near zero/one) of certain events happening. It might very well be that just as we needed group theory and other approaches before we could even ask the right questions in physics we might very well need a better way/model to talk about the functions of the mind. For example, viewing thinking as an n-dimensional probability space and learning as something deforming that space seems at least intuitively appealing (therefore it's probably wrong :-) It also may turn out that trying to separate anything physical from the conscious is an error and there's very little useful thought that can go on without experiental sensation, there is a continuum between the external and internal (note how disruptive experiences like isolation tanks can be to thinking.) This can be simulated, the notion of an hallucinating program seems apt. Another thought that has occurred to me (and others) is that few AI researchers have the patience (or the grant money!) to put the kind of time into an AI program that your average parent puts into your average child (not to mention the number of bits the rest of the world feeds a child.) -Barry Shein, Boston University