Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!maytag!watdcsu!ssingh From: ssingh@watdcsu.waterloo.edu ( SINGH S - INDEPENDENT STUDIES ) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Where might CR understanding come from (if it exists) Message-ID: <5755@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> Date: 2 Apr 89 05:43:50 GMT References: <2691@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <813@htsa.uucp> Reply-To: ssingh@watdcsu.waterloo.edu ( SINGH S - INDEPENDENT STUDIES ) Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 19 Regarding the division of thought: I think BOTH are right in a way, but both also have their flaws. Carbon and Hydrogen does have something going for it that Silicon does not, that property of being INCREDIBLY plastic. If you could freeze someone at time t, and map out the neural networks, then froze them again at time t +5, you would find changes in the nets. Current computer technology does not allow circuitry to change itself. Unless there is a major revolution in the design of hardware, I honestly think the first truly intelligent computer will be made with organic materials. Who knows? It may even be grown using recombinant DNA or something like that. There is no way we can match the plasticity of the brain with current technology. The second idea is very pure, and very open-ended. While I admire this purity and free-form style, I think it has become undisciplined. Such all encompassing models should be able to express every macroscopic observation in terms of the theoretical models. No one seems to be able to agree on even the most basic of definitions. Plenty of vigour, but no rigour .