Category : Tutorials + Patches
Archive   : AIMSG.ZIP
Filename : AI2

Jerry Jackson writes:

>This is a seriously flawed statement of the position. It is not that
>carbon "has something" that silicon doesn't -- that would be *stupid*.
>What is claimed is that possibly it is not merely functional structure
>that determines the mind. The "silicon-based" computers we have are
>brain-like only in functional organization (if that :-). Perhaps
>consciousness is a *chemical* phenomenon and not a result of a particular
>functional structure.

I don't understand. First you say that it is stupid to believe that
carbon has something that silicon doesn't (sounds sensible to me).
Then you claim that having a mind might be some chemical phenomenon
rather than an abstract information processing phenomenon. So carbon
"has it"; "it" would be certain chemical properties. What is the
difference ?

[...]

>I think most people involved in this argument assume that humans evolved
>to their present state. This, however, is beside the point ... Searle
>and others are simply arguing that something is left out when one does
>so ... Humans have a strange attribute known as subjectivity that doesn't
--MORE--(38%)
>immediately appear to be reducible to structure or functional organization.
>It may even be totally unnecessary for intelligent behavior. If so, though,
>it is hard to imagine why such a thing would evolve.

I don't think that it is beside the point. Evolving to the present
state, including the present brain-organization and mind/consciousness/
etc. is a process which is determined by external behaviour. From the
evolution point of view, there is no reason why any subjective experience
would exist if it would not have a relationship with "the outside world".
But such a relationship does exist: when you experience the subjective
feeling that you understand, you behave different then when you don't
have that feeling. So I claim that *every* subjective experience is an
internal state which (partly) determines the behaviour.


Gilbert Cockton writes:

>>As the level of complexity of the organism increases, it will have
>>to do more "information processing" ... My point: intelligence etc.
>>developed out of a need to determine how to behave in order to survive.
>
>You equate intelligence with a high degree of information processing.
>A cheque clearing system does a high degree of information processing.
--MORE--(68%)
>It must be intelligent then - and AI was achieved 20 years ago?

Please see the difference between "many simple tasks, all the same" and
"many different and difficult tasks". But yes: AI was invented (at least)
20 years ago. The cheque clearing system you write about does understand
how to process a check.

[...]

>>Gilbert Cockton even claims that because human minds are not artifacts,
>>while computer systems always will be, there will always be performance
>>differences. Apart from the fact that this statement is nonsense, it
>>is not of any importance to AI-research.
>
>An artefact is designed for a given purpose. As far as the purpose is
>concerned, it must be fully understood... mind is not fully understood...
>hence we cannot yet build an equivalent artefact until we understand it.

So when we understand how the human mind works, we can build a machine
which has properties like "consciousness", "understanding" etc. Do you
claim that this would not be an artifact (maybe because we didn't design
it ourselves, but rather copied it) ? Or would we have built an artifact
with a mind ? Then there would be no performance differences... That's
--MORE--(96%)
all I wanted to say.

--
Frans van Otten
Algemene Hogeschool Amsterdam
Technische en Maritieme Faculteit
[email protected]
End of article 1333 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

Article 1334 (12 more) in comp.ai:
From: [email protected] (Bert Hutchings)


Subject: Re: the surrealism of dreams
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 4 Apr 89 10:11:38 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Bert Hutchings)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 17

--MORE--(27%)
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Mark William
Hopkins) writes:

> It is known among sleep researchers that the seemingly nonsensical quality
> of dreams arises because the medulla is sending out random signals during
> this phase of sleep, which the neocortex tries is damned best to weave into
> a logically consistent framework.

J.W. Dunne took a similar view in his book "An Experiment with Time". The
dreaming mind is re-visiting segments of its past experience, but it has a
defective span of attention, so the segments are short and disjointed. At
a later stage, a less dreamy mind fills in the gaps between the segments.
Dunne is intrigued that, searching for logical consistency, the gap-filler
will resort to almost any surrealism, rather than directly juxtapose the
segments. He concludes that our subconscious holds on far more strongly to
a rule that "human beings do not travel instantaneously in time or place"
than it does to its general rules about the physical world.
End of article 1334 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

Article 1335 (11 more) in comp.ai:
From: [email protected] (Gilbert Cockton)


Subject: Re: Where might CR understanding come from (if it exists)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 4 Apr 89 11:24:14 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 27

--MORE--(29%)
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Greg Lee) writes:
>From article <[email protected]>, by [email protected] (Gilbert Cockton):
>" ... As 'mind' was not designed, and not by us more
>" importantly, it is not fully understood for any of its activities
>" ('brains' are of course, e.g. sleep regulation). Hence we cannot yet
>" build an equivalent artefact until we understand it. ...
>
>It doesn't follow. Think of a diamond, for instance.
>
Category mistake.

Diamonds are
a) concrete
b) 'assayable' - i.e. you can test chemically that X is indeed a diamond
c) synthesisable by following well-understood chemical theories

Minds are
a) abstract
b) not 'assayable' - what the word covers is vague.
c) not provably sythesisable becuase of (b) no test for mindhood, and al--MORE--(83%)
so no
theory of how minds get made and function

I am still thinking of a diamond however.
I cannot think of a mind.
--
Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow
[email protected] !ukc!glasgow!gilbert
End of article 1335 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

Article 1336 (10 more) in comp.ai:
From: [email protected] (Gilbert Cockton)


Subject: Re: Where might CR understanding come from (if it exists)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 4 Apr 89 11:41:13 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <36
Reply-To: [email protected] (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 46

--MORE--(16%)
In article <3684@mit-amt> [email protected] (Trevor Darrell) writes:
>
>Excuse me, but exactly how does one determine when an activity can or
>cannot improve understanding? And have you published your test
>of what can, and cannot, count as knowledge? ``References?''
>
I'm utterly derivative 🙂 Go mug up on epistemology and philosophy of science, then
characterise the activities of the various branches of AI (they are not birds of a
feather, until you reach the strong AI stuff, like real-world semantics),and then
decide to what extent any of them have a coherent view of what it is to promote
convincement.

>Would you have had all intellectual explorations throughout the
>ages constrained by these tests? All the artistic explorations? Would you
>perscribe them as an absolute guide to your child's education?

Of course not, but we aren't talking about individual exploration, or private
enlightenment. We are talking about institutionalised creation of knowledge in the
--MORE--(49%)
post-war academic culture. This eats resources and shapes people's images of the
future. Democracy demands quality control.

I know of no incident in the history of science where continued romantic mucking
about got anywhere. As A.N. Whitehead argued, all learning must begin with a stage of
Romance, otherwise there will be no motivation, no drive to learn, no fascination.
But it must be followed by a stage of analysis, a specialisation based on proper
discipline, for "where one destroys specialism, one destroys life." With specialism,
the mind is "a disciplined regiment" not a "rabble". For Whitehead, a final stage of
Generalisation which applies specialised analysis into common sense, real-world
context is essential.

(A.N. Whitehead, (as in Russel & _) The Aims of Education, 1929)

As for children's education, I designed and implemented curricula based on what
Whitehead called his 'Rhythm of Education'.
--MORE--(79%)

AI rarely gets beyond the first beat of the rhythm. Sometimes it dodges it and goes
straight into logic etc, but never gets to generalisation, since it was never
grounded in anything sensible in the first place.

I note that Trevor works in AI vision, which has not got to where it is by romantic
sci-fi, but by proper analysis of psychophysical and physiological knowledge. Once
reasoning is needed, all this good work goes becomes diluted with the shifting sands
of basic AI.
--
Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow
[email protected] !ukc!glasgow!gilbert
End of article 1336 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

Article 1337 (9 more) in comp.ai:
From: [email protected] (Frans van Otten)


Subject: Re: Where might CR understanding come from (if it exists)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 4 Apr 89 20:18:47 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Frans van Otten)
Organization: AHA-TMF (Technical Institute), Amsterdam Netherlands
Lines: 86

--MORE--(8%)
Greg Lee writes:

>It's hard to see where CR understanding might come from (if it exists).
>
>These things don't exist ... the effort to program meaning into a
>machine can never be successful ... because there's simply no such
>thing in the world to be found in us or to be put into a machine.

Without getting too philosophical, let me explain that this is partly
true and partly false. Humans are conscious. This is true simply
because we state it. But what do we mean by "conscious" ? It is some
subjective phenomenon. Subjective phenomena are in my opinion nothing
more than certain internal states (a flag that is set, a variable, ...).
So when I say "I am conscious" I only say that that specific flag is
set. So consciousness does exist (otherwise the word would never have
been invented), but it is not a phenomenon that can be observed or
detected in the functional structure or in the chemical structure or
whereever.

The same holds for "understanding". I define "understanding" as
"represented in internal symbols". So it is valid to say that my
calculator understands addition; it is hard-wired into it.

--MORE--(34%)
Understanding in itself is useless. But it becomes neccesary when
you want to do something with this understood concept (or whatever
it is). So when I want to use my calculator, it must be able to
perform the rules for addition (which it understands). So I have
to feed it with batteries and numbers. At the moment that I feed
it with numbers, it understands the instantion of addition I want
it to perform now, e.g. 5 + 3 = 8.

So "understanding" exists at many levels: I can understand a general
concept like addition, but I can also understand an instantion of
addition: I understand that 5 and 3 are 8.

The more general "rules" that a system "understands" determine the
general behaviour of a system. This set of rules is more commonly
referred to as the "intelligence" of the system. The more rules
the system understands, the more intelligent it is. Don't immediately
say "nonsense"; think about it. Don't you ever note the use of this
word in general ? In signatures, some people write:

Dumb mailers: {backbones}!foo!bar!etc!my_name
Intelligent mailers: [email protected]_domain

When we are not discussing AI, "understanding" is a normal word.
--MORE--(60%)
Under normal circumstances, a watch understands to include februari
29 every fourth year. But when we start discussing AI (or AI-related
philosophy) words like "understanding" and "intelligence" get a
mysterious load.

The Chinese Room Argument is nonsense. Let me explain it once more:

1. It passes the TT. This means: a human being can't tell the
difference between a Chinaman and The Room. The behaviour
of the room is such that the humans in the jury set their
flag: "it understands".

2. John Searle, inside the room, doesn't experience understanding
of Chinese. This means: the internal state of the system
"Searle" are such that he concludes (unconsciously) not to set
his flag "I understand".

3. John Searle then concludes: "As I don't understand, the entire
Room doesn't understand" (etc). He should have concluded: "I
don't seem to understand, but this doesn't say anything about
the Rooms understanding capability".

4. I say: Sure, the room does understand Chinese. Only to the
--MORE--(84%)
extend that the set of books provide for, of course. And of
course, the Room has not the [human] sense of "understanding",
as there is no flag for such an internal state.

5. I add to that: In humans, these "flags" are probably located
in the right hemisphere. And the symbol grouding problem is
probably solved in humans by connecting "understood" concepts
to "understood" (physical) sensations. (This latter statement
is supported by certain psychological models.) Disclaimer: I
am not sure about these statements, they merely seem very
probable to me.

--
Frans van Otten
Algemene Hogeschool Amsterdam
Technische en Maritieme Faculteit
[email protected]
End of article 1337 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

Article 1338 (8 more) in comp.ai:
From: [email protected] (Barry W. Kort)


Subject: Re: Thinking about the reduction of Entropy.
Summary: Would it be possible to choose life?
Keywords: Heat Death and Light Life.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 31 Mar 89 22:33:04 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix (Kort)
Organization: Koyannisqatsi Industries, Amrak Dab, AZ
Lines: 14

--MORE--(50%)
In article <8[email protected]> [email protected] writes:

> The overwhelming evidence is that the higher the animal species,
> the more rapidly it is helping ADVANCE the ultimate heat-death
> of the universe, rather than the reverse correlation, as intimated
> by a previous note.
> - Mark Goldfain

I don't deny the accuracy of your observation, Mark.

I just don't understand why an intelligent species would consciously
take self-destruction as a goal.

--Barry
End of article 1338 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

Article 1339 (7 more) in comp.ai:
From: [email protected] (Barry W. Kort)


Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument
Summary: Could I have some simulated music, too?
Keywords: Chinese Restaurant Simulation
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 2 Apr 89 04:02:59 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort)
Organization: Garden Golems, Inc., Norbert, WI
Lines: 18

--MORE--(39%)
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Ray Allis) presents
a simulated repast:

> Your dinner entree for tonight is digital computer simulation of filet
> mignon! It includes simulated baked potato, simulated tossed salad with
> simulated vinegar, oil and Italian spices. Your steak simulation includes
> five significant digits of heat, aroma and sizzle. And I suggest a superb
> simulation of a vintage Port. This requires several minutes on a Cray X-MP,
> and is really exquisite, including detailed molecular-level simulation of
> over three hundred organic aromatic compounds!
>
> Bon appetit!

My simulated patron reports that the food was excellent, but he
laments the lack of candlelight ambience and the pleasant conversation
of a charming dinner companion.

--Barry Kort
End of article 1339 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

Article 1340 (6 more) in comp.ai:
From: [email protected] (Barry W. Kort)


Subject: Re: Understanding involves Learning?
Keywords: Knowledge Acquisition and Emotions
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 3 Apr 89 18:36:23 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort)
Organization: Garden Golems, Inc., Norbert, WI
Lines: 16

--MORE--(43%)
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Chris Malcolm) writes:

> To approach it from another direction: does understanding involve
> learning?

I have been advocating this idea for several years now.

It seems to me that understanding means more than just reposing
a static knowledge base. To my mind, understanding includes
the process of gaining knowledge over time.

Incidentally, I maintain that a sentient being who is in the
process of acquiring knowledge over time will exhibit such
emotions as puzzlement, confusion, and curiosity.

--Barry Kort
End of article 1340 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

Article 1341 (5 more) in comp.ai:
From: [email protected] (Juergen Herrmann)


Subject: request: Work on software engineering for expert systems
Keywords: software engineering, expert systems
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 5 Apr 89 08:57:12 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected] (Juergen Herrmann)
Organization: University of Dortmund, W-Germany
Lines: 19

--MORE--(44%)
I would appreciate pointers to work on software engineering methods for
expert systems. Specifically I need information about the documentation of
expert system developments.

Thank you,

Juergen Herrmann

UUCP: ...!uunet!unido!herrmann
or [email protected]
CSNET: herrmann%[email protected]
ARPA: herrmann%[email protected]
BITNET: [email protected]

UUCP: ...!uunet!unido!herrmann
or [email protected]
CSNET: herrmann%[email protected]
ARPA: herrmann%[email protected]
BITNET: [email protected]
End of article 1341 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

Article 1342 (4 more) in comp.ai:
From: [email protected] (Christopher A. Welty)


Subject: Re: Thinking about the reduction of Entropy.
Keywords: Heat Death and Light Life.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 5 Apr 89 15:29:08 GMT
References: <550002@hpfelg.HP.COM> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: RPI Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 11

--MORE--(56%)
In article <[email protected]> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes:
>
>I just don't understand why an intelligent species would consciously
>take self-destruction as a goal.
>

Look at the people on Wall Street.


Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs | "Porsche: Fahren in
[email protected] ...!njin!nyser!weltyc | seiner schoensten Form"
End of article 1342 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

Article 1343 (3 more) in comp.ai:
From: [email protected] (Bob Crosson)


Subject: Are there any disease diagnosis AI projects out there?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 5 Apr 89 13:27:56 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
Lines: 11

--MORE--(44%)

Are there currently operating any systems/databases/artificial
intelligence projects which diagnose illnesses? My wife has
something that I'm sure is not unique to her, but the doctors
we have seen - a lot of them - can't agree on what she has, so
they are treating only her pain.

Any information would be gratefully appreciated. E-mail can be
sent directly to

[email protected]
End of article 1343 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

Article 1344 (2 more) in comp.ai:
From: [email protected] (Dave King)


Subject: Call for Papers - HICSS23
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 5 Apr 89 18:50:02 GMT
Organization: Execucom Systems Corp
Lines: 76

--MORE--(9%)
B
B
B

Expires:
Sender:
Reply-To: [email protected] ()
Followup-To:


Call for Papers
Expert Systems Minitrack in the DSS-KBS Track of the
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 23
Kailua-Kona, HI Jan., 1989

Expert systems and knowledge-base systems are being applied
in a variety of domains. This minitrack of the DSS-KBS Track
at HICSS-23 focuses primarily on the use of ES/KBS in the
decision support, business/financial and information management
delivery arenas. While the focus is somewhat specific, papers
can be theoretical, applied or empirical in nature. In particular,
papers dealing with one or more of the following topics are
encouraged:
--MORE--(35%)

o Knowledge representation
o Reasoning with uncertainty, probablistic or fuzzy data
o Common sense reasoning
o Knowledge acquisition
o Tools and technologies for creating ES/KBS
o Distributed ES/KBS
o Integrating ES/KBS with DSS or DBMS
o Embedding ES/KBS in DSS or DBMS
o Intelligent tutoring and frontends
o Conversational advisory systems and natural language frontends
o Empirical studies dealing with the use of ES/KBS technology
o Prototypical or commercial ES/KBS in specific domains which
illustrate innovative applications or aspects of these technologies

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PAPERS

Manuscripts should be 22-26 typewritten, double-spaced pages in length.
Do not send submissions that are significantly shorter or longer than
this. Papers must not have been previously presented or published,
nor submitted for journal publication. Each manuscript will be
subjected to a rigorous refereeing process. Manuscripts should have
a title page that includes the title of the paper, full name(s) of its
--MORE--(74%)
author(s), affiliation(s), complete mailing and electronic address(es),
telephone number(s), and a 300-word abstract.

DEADLINES

o Six copies of the manuscript are due by June 6, 1989
o Notification of accepted papers by Sept. 1, 1989
o Camera ready copy by Oct. 1, 1989

SEND PAPERS TO

Dave King
Director, AI Applications
Execucom Systems Corp.
9442 Capital of Texas Hwy. N.
Arboretum Plaza One
Austin TX 78759
512-346-4980

or

Professor James Marsden
Department of Decision Science and Information Systems
--MORE--(93%)
College of Business and Economics
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0034
606-257-2536
Distribution:
Organization: Execucom Systems Corp., Austin, Texas
Keywords:
End of article 1344 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

Article 1345 (1 more) in comp.ai:
From: ssi[email protected] ( SINGH S - INDEPENDENT STUDIES )


Subject: Re: Thinking about the reduction of Entropy.
Keywords: Heat Death and Light Life.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 5 Apr 89 17:24:53 GMT
References: <550002@hpfelg.HP.COM> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-To: ssi[email protected] ( SINGH S - INDEPENDENT STUDIES )
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 11

--MORE--(50%)
In article <[email protected]> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes:
>I just don't understand why an intelligent species would consciously
>take self-destruction as a goal.
>
>--Barry

Oh come on. No intelligent species would consciously take self-destruction
as a goal. It is just a consequence of it being more complex that it
is less efficient. The car you used to get to the milk store converts
about 5% of the chemical potential energy in the fuel to work. The
rest is heat. Your very thoughts are inefficient. They use energy inefficiently. (no insult intended) The list goes on...
End of article 1345 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

Article 1346 in comp.ai:
From: [email protected] (Mark William Hopkins)


Subject: Re: Where might CR understanding come from (if it exists)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 5 Apr 89 22:33:27 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected] (Mark William Hopkins)
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Lines: 20

--MORE--(32%)
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frans van Otten) writes:
>Greg Lee writes:
>
>>These things don't exist ... the effort to program meaning into a
>>machine can never be successful ... because there's simply no such
>>thing in the world to be found in us or to be put into a machine.
>
>The same holds for "understanding". I define "understanding" as
>"represented in internal symbols".

... and let me add here. Those "symbols" are the symbolic operations that
control the body's muscular/skeletal functions. For example, we "understand"
the verb to "move" by relating it to the control we exercise over our muscles;
the verb to "eat" by our ability to eat and digest food and so on.
These are biological universals of the human race that, in effect, create
a universal semantic formalism for all human languages; which, in turn, gives
us all a common basis for learning our first (and second and ...) language.
Understanding a *human* language is intimately related to experiencing our
biological condition.
BTW, just what is CR anyway?
End of article 1346 (of 1346)--what next? [npq]

End of newsgroup comp.ai.

******** 65 unread articles in comp.arch--read now? [ynq]