Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert
From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Where might CR understanding come from (if it exists)
Message-ID: <2691@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Mar 89 11:22:47 GMT
References: <Mar.4.00.45.52.1989.4435@elbereth.rutgers.edu> <9560@megaron.arizona.edu> <2568@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <4079@xyzzy.UUCP> <2599@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <4275@xyzzy.UUCP> <28867@sri-unix.SRI.COM> <4506@xyzzy.UUCP>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 27

In article <4506@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@agarn.dg.com (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
>I'm not willing to make it easy either.  The commotion is over just
>what constitutes "relevant causes".  I simply do not think that the
>human brain has any mysterious "causal powers" that a computer
>executing a suitable program does not.

OK then, let's here what a "suitable" program would be.  I contend that
AI research doesn't have a grasp of what "suitable" means at all.

For one, human minds are not artefacts, whereas computer programs
always will be.  This alone will ALWAYS result in performance
differences.  Given a well-understood task, computer programs will
out-perform humans.  Given a poorly understood task, they will look
almost as silly as the author of the abortive program.

The issue as ever is what we do and do not understand about the human
mind, the epistemelogical constraints on this knowledge, and the
ability of AI research as it is practised to add anything at all to
this knowledge.

Come on then boys and girls in AI, lets hear it on "suitable" :-)

Cyberpunk fragments are acceptable, and indeed indistinguishable in a
LTT from some AI research :-]
-- 
Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science,  The University, Glasgow
	gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert