Xref: utzoo talk.philosophy.misc:1829 comp.ai:3084 sci.bio:1753
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!haven!purdue!bu-cs!mirror!rayssd!raybed2!linus!mbunix!bwk
From: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence
Summary: Creative Intelligence
Keywords: Synthetic Reasoning
Message-ID: <43582@linus.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jan 89 09:37:11 GMT
References: <558@soleil.UUCP> <43472@linus.UUCP> <331@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> <568@uceng.UC.EDU>
Sender: news@linus.UUCP
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort)
Organization: The Assembly of Goods Ministries, Ste. Elsewhen
Lines: 29

In article <568@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (Daniel Mocsny) writes:

 > Is the solid-color puzzle problem NP-complete?

There are two kinds of extra-hard jigsaw puzzles:  the solid-color
puzzles (Little Red Riding Hood's Hood) and the puzzle in which
all the pieces are the same shape (Schmuzzles).

But curiously enough, the solid-color Schmuzzle puzzle isn't even
NP-hard.  It's NP-ridiculous.  :-)

On a more sublime note, Dan returns to the original point of discussion:

 > But I think I am subverting Barry's original comment. He seemed to
 > be saying that the way the puzzle happens to divide into pieces
 > has _nothing_at_all_to_do_ with the picture that appears on the
 > puzzle.  The "obvious" reductionist approach to "understanding" or
 > "explaining" the picture on the puzzle is doomed from the start.

I suppose Mother Nature is not so devilish as the jigsaw puzzle
maker.  But our own category boundaries are still somewhat arbitrary.
And, by studying the "elements" we don't automatically understand how
they assemble themselves into "molecules".

What I am saying is that anaylysis and differentiation are valuable
tools, but creative intelligence also requires synthesis and
integration.

--Barry Kort