Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!mucs!liv-cs!ian
From: ian@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk (Ian Finch)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Making fires and making minds - the laws of physics prevail
Message-ID: <4379@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk>
Date: 21 Apr 89 12:06:05 GMT
References: <10992@bcsaic.UUCP> <16878@cup.portal.com> <2792@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <17374@cup.portal.com> <2826@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Organization: Computer Science CSMVAX, Liverpool University
Lines: 69

In article <2826@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
> In article <17374@cup.portal.com> dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) writes:
>>It would be more accurate to say that our self-models and other-models are
>>hopelessly inadequate for prediction purposes.
> 
> And must remain so.  If the laws of physics demand that we have the
> illusion of choice, then this illusion must persist.  If the laws of
> physics must prevail over everything, then there must be no progress,
> no history.  All is determined.  

This is the precise opposite of what the laws of physics say. Quantum mechanical
theory means that all is undetermined; the Universe is governed by randomness.

> So I presume America's future decisions over abortion, school
> prayers and the budget deficit are all going to be determined by the
> laws of physics?

The brains of the people making those decisions are subject to the laws of
physics, and therefore the decisions are (albeit indirectly).

> You cannot predict how though.  The subjects range of choice
> (variation of response if you want) is not predictable.  All knowledge
> here can only be post-hoc, and there is no immediate hope of this
> changing.  I suggest you acquaint yourself with research methods in
> psychology, since the argument cannot be carried any further without
> some common knowledge here.

The argument *can* continue without common knowledge, if people knew what they
were talking about this argument would be contrary to standard comp.ai
procedure.

> What's the value of a concept like 'theoretical possibility'.  It's of
> no real interest.  Practice is the only thing which matters.

This attitude leads to mental stagnation. Theory should always precede practical
issues --- who knows what tomorrow's technology will bring?

> What decides where to put the arm.
> Me, within my physical limitations.  I've just tapped the desk twice.
> I presume the laws of physics forced me to do this here and now.

Your brain made that decision in accordance with the laws of physics.

>>     AI's sole purpose is not to advance knowledge of human psychology.  It
>>has many purposes.  That's one.  Perhaps it doesn't fulfill that one well. 
>>Another is to come up with potentially useful applications.  That one it
>>fills extraordinarily well.
> 
> Examples please.  Folk around here have been asking for them for
> years.  To qualify applications must be in use, have a manual, a user
> base and be applied to real work.

Why must a *potentially* useful application ``have a manual, a user base and be
applied to real work''? AI research should aim to have practical uses in real
work, but in the majority of cases it has not yet reached that stage. Things
that have fulfilled your criteria are citation browsing systems and applications
like Hypercard on the Macintosh.

AI is a young subject. Whilst this should not be used as an excuse, it *is* a
valid reason why it has not reached the level of maturity of other disciplines.

Ian Finch              Janet: ian@uk.ac.liv.cs.mva
---------              Internet: ian%mva.cs.liv.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu
                       UUCP: ...mcvax!ukc!ian@uk.ac.liv.cs.mva
================================================================================
   Vila: I've got this shocking pain right behind the eyes.
   Avon: Have you considered amputation?
                                                            - Blake's Seven
================================================================================