Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!husc6!bloom-beacon!quintus.UUCP!ok
From: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest
Subject: Re: Computer science as a subset of artificial intelligence
Message-ID: <639@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 8 Nov 88 01:46:40 GMT
References: <8811022255.AA09243@BOEING.COM>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: quintus!ok@Sun.COM (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 12
Approved: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu


In a previous article, Ray Allis writes:
>I was disagreeing with that too-limited definition of AI.  *Computer
>science* is about applications of computers, *AI* is about the creation
>of intelligent artifacts.  I don't believe digital computers, or rather
>physical symbol systems, can be intelligent.  It's more than difficult,
>it's not possible.

There being no other game in town, this implies that AI is impossible.
Let's face it, connectionist nets are rule-governed systems; anything a
connectionist net can do a collection of binary gates can do and vice
versa.  (Real neurons &c may be another story, or may not.)