Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caesar.cs.montana.edu!milton!uw-beaver!cornell!oravax!ian
From: ian@oravax.UUCP (Ian Sutherland)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Simulating thinking is NOT like simulating flying
Message-ID: <1360@oravax.UUCP>
Date: 23 Feb 90 03:32:00 GMT
References: <6557@cps3xx.UUCP>
Reply-To: ian@oravax.odyssey.UUCP (Ian Sutherland)
Organization: Odyssey Research Associates, Ithaca, New York
Lines: 16

In article <6557@cps3xx.UUCP> sticklen@cpswh.cps.msu.edu (Jon Sticklen) writes:
>others of us would like to use the experience of building
>"black boxes that work" as a springboard to reaching for
>principles that underlie intelligent beahavior.

This is a perfectly reasonable, time-honored approach to such a
problem.  In order to apply it, however, you must first HAVE some
"black boxes that work".  Can anyone point to a single instance of
such?  It is my impression that many people in AI want to figure out
what intelligent behavior is in complete generality before they build
the "black boxes that work".  I personally think this is the wrong
approach.
-- 
Ian Sutherland		ian%oravax.uucp@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu

Sans Peur