Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!prls!pyramid!ctnews!unix386!mark
From: mark@unix386.Convergent.COM (Mark Nudelman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Simulating thinking is NOT like ...
Message-ID: <897@unix386.Convergent.COM>
Date: 2 Mar 90 02:15:37 GMT
References: <6671@cps3xx.UUCP>
Organization: Unisys/Convergent, San Jose, CA
Lines: 28

In article <6671@cps3xx.UUCP>, sticklen@cpswh.cps.msu.edu (Jon Sticklen) writes:
> 
> on ywlee@aisunk.cs.uiuc.edu suggestion to "recognize hard goals"...
> 
> actually it would seem that "impossible" is the right word.
> ie, this is not the same as the halting problem. eg, suppose
> i have a goal of living to be 10,000 years old. i should recognize
> this as impossible and abandon searching for ways to achieve the goal.
> (note i am not saying that such goals may never be achieved, but in
> a commonsense notion, such a goal is impossible.)

What does this mean?  If a goal may someday be achieved, it is
not impossible.  At least that's how I use the word.  Do you
use "impossible" to refer to things that are unattainable
today but attainable tomorrow? 

Back to the relation of this to AI; I would say that the requirement
that an entity abandon certain goals which appear to be impossible
is at best an arguable requirement for intelligent behavior.  Would
you say that humans who tried to build flying machines in the 18th
century were not intelligent?  How about humans who currently try
to trisect angles with compass & straightedge?  I could equally well
argue that continuing to attempt to find solutions to apparently
insoluable problems is one sign of _intelligent_ behavior. 
(Equally well means equally badly.)

Mark Nudelman
{uunet,sun,decwrl,hplabs}!pyramid!ctnews!unix386!mark