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: Understanding (what is this thing called) Mind
Message-ID: <2755@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 10 Apr 89 08:34:20 GMT
References: <Mar.4.00.45.52.1989.4435@elbereth.rutgers.edu> <2691@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <813@htsa.uucp> <448@esosun.UUCP> <819@htsa.uucp> <2728@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <724@aipna.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 16

>So now showing up gaps in our current understanding is a bad thing? We
>should perhaps skip allong happily constructing partial and possibly
>self contradictory theories?

Of course not.  Folk who need to spend months writing a computer
program to do it though can't be using their grey matter to its limit.

The question is, has computer simulation of 'mind' exposed ignorance
unknown to mainstream cognitive psychologists.  What's computer
simulation got to do with 'self-contradiction' as well?  Is computer
logic really the arbitor of consistency?

If not, Strong AI is an expensive way of finding holes in knowledge.
-- 
Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science,  The University, Glasgow
	gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert