Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 1 Issue 115
AIList Digest Wednesday, 21 Dec 1983 Volume 1 : Issue 115
Today's Topics:
Neurophysics - Left/Right-Brain Citation Request,
Knowledge Representation,
Science & Computer Science & Expert Systems,
Science - Definition,
AI Funding - New Generation Computing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 16 Dec 83 13:10:45-PST (Fri)
From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!majka @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Left / Right Brain
Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.571
From: Marc Majka <majka@ubc-vision.UUCP>
I have heard endless talk, and read endless numbers of magazine-grade
articles about left / right brain theories. However, I have not seen a
single reference to any scientific evidence for these theories. In fact,
the only reasonably scientific discussion I heard stated quite the opposite
conclusion about the brain: That although it is clear that different parts
of the brain are associated with specific functions, there is no logical
(analytic, mathematical, deductive, sequential) / emotional (synthetic,
intuitive, inductive, parallel) pattern in the hemispheres of the brain.
Does anyone on the net have any references to any studies that have been
done concerning this issue? I would appreciate any directions you could
provide. Perhaps, to save the load on this newsgroup (since this is not an
AI question), it would be best to mail directly to me. I would be happy to
post a summary to this group.
Marc Majka - UBC Laboratory for Computational Vision
------------------------------
Date: 15 Dec 83 20:12:46-PST (Thu)
From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!rggoebel @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: New Topic (technical) - (nf)
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.362
Bob Kowalski has said that the only way to represent knowledge is
using first order logic. ACM SIGART Newsletter No. 70, February 1980
surveys many of the people in the world actually doing representation
research, and few of them agree with Kowalski. Is there anyone out
there than can substantiate a claim for actually ``representing'' (what
ever that means) ``knowledge?'' Most of the knowledge representation
schemes I've seen are really deductive information description languages
with quasi-formal extensions. I don't have a good definition of what
knowledge is...but ask any mathematical logician (or mathematical
philosopher) what they think about calling something like KRL a
knowledge representation language.
Randy Goebel
Logic Programming Group
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA N2L 3G1
------------------------------
Date: 13 Dec 83 8:14:51-PST (Tue)
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!security!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!br
unix!jah @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: RE: Expert Systems
Article-I.D.: brunix.5992
I don't understand what the "size" of a program has to do with anything.
The notion that size is important seems to support the idea that the
word "science" in "computer science" belongs in quote marks. That is,
that CS is just a bunch of hacks anyhow.
The theory folks, whom I think most of us would call computer scientists,
write almost no programs. Yet, I'd say their contribution to CS is
quite important (who analyzed the sorting algorithm you used this morning?)
At least some parts of AI are still Science (with a capital "S"). We are
exploring issues involving cognition and memory, as well as building the
various programs that we call "expert systems" and the like. Pople's group,
for example, are examining how it is that expert doctors come to make
diagnoses. He is interested in the computer application, but also in the
understanding of the underlying process.
Now, while we're flaming, let me also mention that some AI programs have
been awfully large. If you are into the "bigger is better" mentality, I
suggest a visit to Yale and a view of some of the language programs there.
How about FRUMP, which in its 1978 version took up three processes each
using over 100K of memory, the source code was several hundred pages, and
it contained word definitions for over 10,000 words. A little bigger
than Haunt??
Pardon all this verbiage, but I think AI has shown itself both on
the scientific level, by contributions to the field of psychology,
(and linguistics for that matter) and by contributions to the state of
the art in computer technology, and also in the engineering level, by
designing and building some very large programs and some new
programming techniques and tools.
-Jim Hendler
------------------------------
Date: 19 Dec 1983 15:00-EST
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD.ARPA
Subject: Re: Math as science
Actually, my library's encyclopedia says that mathematics isn't
a science, since it doesn't study phenomena, but rather is "the
language of science". Perhaps part of the fuzziness about
AI-as-science is that we are creating most of the phenomena we are
studying, and the more theoretical components of what we are doing look
a lot like mathematical logic, which isn't a science.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1983 10:21:47 EST
From: AXLER.Upenn-1100@Rand-Relay (David M. Axler - MSCF Applications Mgr.)
Subject: Defining "Science"
For better or worse, there really isn't such a thing as a prototypical
science. The meaning of the word 'science' has always been different in
different realms of discourse: what the "average American" means by the term
differs from what a physicist means, and neither of them would agree with an
individual working in one of the 'softer' fields.
This is not something we want to change, in my view. The belief that
there must be one single standardized definition for a very general term is
not a useful one, especially when the term is one that does not describe a
explicit, material thing (e.g., blood, pencil, etc.). Abstract terms are
always dependent on the social context of their use for their definition; it's
just that academics often forget (or fail to note) that contexts other than
their own fields exist.
Even if we try and define science in terms of its usage of the "scientific
method," we find that there's no clear definition. If you've yet to read it,
I strongly urge you to take a look at Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions," which is one of the most important books written about science.
He looks at what the term has meant, and does mean, in various disciplines
at various periods, and examines very carefully how the definitions were, in
reality, tied to other socially-defined notions. It's a seminal work in the
study of the history and sociology of science.
The social connotations of words like science affect us all every day.
In my personal opinion, one of the major reasons why the term 'computer
science' is gaining popularity within academia is that it dissociates the
field from engineering. The latter field has, at least within most Western
cultures, a social stigma of second-class status attached to it, precisely
because it deals with mundane reality (the same split, of course, comes up
twixt pure and applied mathematics). A good book on this, by the way, is
Samuel Florman's "The Existential Pleasures of Engineering"; his more recent
volume, "Blaming Technology", is also worth your time.
--Dave Axler
------------------------------
Date: Fri 16 Dec 83 17:32:56-PST
From: Al Davis <ADavis at SRI-KL>
Subject: Re: AIList Digest V1 #113
In response to the general feeling that Gee the Japanese are good guys
and the Americans are schmucks and war mongers view, and as a member of
one of the planning groups that wrote the DARPA SC plan, I offer the
following questions for thought:
1. If you were Bob Kahn and were trying to get funding to permit
continued growth of technology under the Reagan administration, would
you ask for $750 million and say that you would do things in such a
way as to prevent military use?
2. If it were not for DARPA how would we be reading and writing all
this trivia on the ARPAnet?
3. If it were not for DARPA how many years (hopefully fun, productive,
and challenging) would have been fundamentally different?
4. Is it possible that the Japanese mean "Japanese society" when they
target programs for "the good of ?? society"?
5. Is it really possible to develop advanced computing technology that
cannot be applied to military problems? Can lessons of
destabilization of the US economy be learned from the automobile,
steel, and TV industries?
6. It is obvious that the Japanese are quick to take, copy, etc. in
terms of technology and profit. Have they given much back? Note: I like
my Sony TV and Walkman as much as anybody does.
7. If DARPA is evil then why don't we all move to Austin and join MCC
and promote good things like large corporate profit?
8. Where would AI be if DARPA had not funded it?
Well the list could go on, but the direction of this diatribe is
clear. I think that many of us (me too) are quick to criticize and
slow to look past the end of our noses. One way to start to improve
society is to climb down off the &%^$&^ ivory tower ourselves. I for
one have no great desire to live in Japan.
Al Davis
ADAVIS @ SRI-KL
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1983 09:13 EST
From: HEWITT%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: New Generation computing: Japanese and U.S. motivations
Ron,
I believe that you have painted a misleading picture of a complex situation.
From talking to participants involved, I believe that MITI is
funding the Japanese Fifth Generation Project primarily for commercial
competitive advantage. In particular they hope to compete with IBM
more effectively than as plug-compatible manufacturers. MITI also
hopes to increase Japanese intellectual prestige. Congress is funding
Strategic Computing to maintain and strengthen US military and
commercial technology. A primary motivation for strengthening the
commercial technology is to meet the Japanese challenge.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Dec 83 20:41:06 PST (Tuesday)
From: Ron Newman <Newman.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
Subject: Re: New Generation computing: Japanese and U.S. motivations
Are we really in disagreement?
It seems pretty clear from my quotes, and from numerous writings on the
subject, that the Japanese intend to use the Fifth Generation Project to
strengthen their position in commercial markets. We don't disagree
there.
It also seems clear that, as you say, "Congress is funding a project
called Strategic Computing to maintain and strengthen US military and
commercial technology." That should be parsed as "Military technology
first, with hopes of commercial spinoff."
If you think that's a misleading distortion, read the DARPA Strategic
Computing Report. Pages 21 through 29 contain detailed specifications
of the requirements of three specific military applications. There is
no equivalent specification of non-military application
requirements--only a vague statement on page 9 that commercial spinoffs
will occur. Military requirements and terminology permeate the entire
report.
If the U.S. program is aimed at military applications, that's what it
will produce. Any commercial or industrial spinoff will be incidental.
If we are serious about strengthening commercial computer technology,
then that's what we should be aiming for. As you say, that's certainly
what the Japanese are aiming for.
Isn't it about time that we put our economic interests first, and the
military second?
/Ron
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
