IUBio

First Causes

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Thu Sep 9 11:00:13 EST 2004


On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:40:50 GMT, Paul Victor Birke
<nonlinear at rogers.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:49:33 +0200, usenet01 at out-of-phase.de (Christian
>> Wilms) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>>>Lester Zick <lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>>>Hi Paul - I got the alist from the liver and onions thread which
>>>>seemed to produce some interesting conversation.

>>>Among other topics on the unappropriateness of cross posting.

>>>>However, if algorithm
>>>>and number crunching persons already know everything they need to know
>>>>to produce ai, far be it from me to impede product development. When
>>>>does the rollout take place? On the other hand, if you aren't actually
>>>>prepared for imminent product rollout, perhaps you should regard a
>>>>little more seriously those endeavors of which you are not so serious.
>>>
>>>With all due respect, but people interested in the philosophical side of
>>>AI will subscribe to c.a.p.
>>>
>>>The same goes for b.n: neuroscientests interested in the philosophical
>>>implications will read the appropriate groups as well. It tends to get
>>>annoying if people just crosspost there philosophical ramifications into
>>>any group which "just might fit".
 
>> So, as I understand it, ai product rollout isn't scheduled for anytime
>> in the near or distant future and you'd prefer not to understand why.
>> 
>Dear Lester
>
>It is not clear why you are harping on this as I suspect we are far from 
>perfect in this somewhat infant science.
>Clearly the practical results of AI could be better.
>However, there are many authors with products and methods that are 
>available commercially.  IMHO there are many others that work rather 
>well are not >>rolled out<< for every day viewing, here the military is 
>a good example or someone who has truly found a time series predictor 
>for the market.  These methods remain hidden from most of us but 
>nonetheless may be very important milestones but for reasons noted above 
>may never be heard about.
>
>I suspect we derive our inspiration and motivation (as the 
>mathematicians amongst us would like to say from a number of sources.
>
>It is again not clear to me and I suspect to a number of my colleagues 
>how your subject area enters into this framework.  Perhaps I am wrong here.
>
>I also cannot speak for other AI persons who indeed may enjoy your 
>suppositions.  I can only say that many of our approaches are 
>algorithmic in nature.
>
>Paul

Dear Paul

As a graduate of Annapolis, I can certainly appreciate your point with
respect to military applications of robotics. And if robotics were the
extent of ai applications, I wouldn't have anything apart from minor
observations to make. The problem is that people think or pretend
they're dealing with artificial intelligence. And that is really where
they have no clue as to what they are talking about.

The whole point of my post is that there is a general first cause for
everything from physical interactions to sentient behavior and that
maybe, just maybe, it's about time someone started to look at the
mechanics involved in all things for the definition of categories of
behavior including intelligence.

As things stand, people just assume that by doing robotics they're
doing intelligence. In other words, they're substituting naive
computationalist robotics for intelligence. If they really want
artificial intelligence, they should understand the difference and
what makes one or the other what it is. For my own part, I don't care.
I have no special interest in robotics despite many years as a systems
programmer. But I do have an abiding interest in intelligence and the
mind and mental effects directly describable in terms of differences
between differences.

In practical terms what I think is that those who seek understanding
of the mechanics of intelligence through neurological analysis are
barking up the wrong tree. I certainly don't mind if mathematicians
want to model things algorithmically. But I think it would help a lot
if they first understood what it is they're supposed to be modeling.

Regards - Lester



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net