Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 5 Issue 233
AIList Digest Monday, 12 Oct 1987 Volume 5 : Issue 233
Today's Topics:
Philosophy - Goals of AI & Flawed Minds
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 5 Oct 87 15:41:48 GMT
From: merlyn@starfire.UUCP (Brian Westley)
Subject: Re: (Where should we go...) How to get there?
Ted Inoue writes:
> In article <46400008@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> morgan@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> >What AI really ought to be is a
> >science that studies intelligence, with the goal of understanding it by
> >rigorous theoretical work, and by empirical study of
> >systems that appear to have intelligence, whatever that is.
> ....
> On the other hand, if we take an educated approach to the problem, and study
> 'intelligent' systems, we have a much greater chance of solving the mysteries
> of the mind...
>
> ---Ted Inoue
This might work, but I would compare your method (understand the human mind
first, then mimic it via computer) to be similar to early heavier-than-air
experiments. Birds were the only working model, but we never got off the
ground until we stopped building airplanes that flapped their wings.
Intelligent computers will probably be as different from the human mind as
747's are from hummingbirds. They will both 'think', but in radically
different ways.
Of course, I could be wrong, so both methods should be explored.
Merlyn LeRoy
------------------------------
Date: 8 Oct 87 10:06:00 EST
From: cugini@icst-ecf.arpa
Reply-to: <cugini@icst-ecf.arpa>
Subject: flawed minds
I'm sure I'm gonna regret getting into this (stop me before I
philosophize again), but here goes.
Put me down as a "yes" vote on the question if all (the vast
majority of ?) human minds are flawed.
First, to clear away some underbrush: of course the truth of the
statement is relative to the meaning of the words used.
"grass is green" is false if the referent of "grass" is zebras, ho hum.
To "play fair", it seems to me we should attempt to take the most
plausible interpretation of what is after all a pithy statement,
and contend with that.
It seems to me that "mind" normally means "that which enables the
owner of the mind to think" - eg if a Martian had a glarp instead
of a brain, but could still play a mean game of chess, and discuss
the NFL strike, etc, we surely would agree s/he had a mind.
Since it is an *essential* feature of a mind that it enables one to think
(positivistic formulation: mind IS the ability to think), it seems
fair to say that to the extent one thinks imperfectly, one's mind is
flawed. I am blithely assuming that "correct thinking" implies at
least the ability to formulate accurate descriptions of the world,
and manipulate them so as to draw correct conclusions.
I don't claim that a mind is nothing but an implementation of logic,
but it at least ought to be logically correct as far as it goes.
Insofar as the human mind implements unsound logic, it is flawed
(lots of people, eg, fall into the fallacy of the converse,
multiply incorrectly, etc.)
"the human mind is flawed" thus seems to me the same kind of
statement as "XYZ cars don't work well". Of course, considered
qua phenomenon, an XYZ car is neither good, bad, nor ugly.
But insofar as one accepts the bland (?) assumption that the
essential purpose of a car, qua car, is to transport you from
A to B, via roadway, then the question is merely whether XYZ
cars in fact usually succeed or not in this task.
The essential purpose of a mind, qua mind, is, among many other
things, to draw conclusions correctly from a given set of facts.
To the extent it fails to do so, it is flawed.
John Cugini <Cugini@icst-ecf.arpa>
------------------------------
Date: Thu 08 Oct 1987 08:33 CDT
From: UUCJEFF%ECNCDC.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: THE MIND
I read some of the MIND theories espoused in the Oct 2 list, and am
frankly disappointed. All those debates are based on the Science vs
Mysticism debates that were going on 10 years ago when I was an undergrad.
I have since discarded both arguments into the /dev/null file. Nonetheless
I would like to make a few comments.
1) It is wrong to assume emotion is a flaw of the mind, or even bring up
Manson and Hitler. I would say absence of emotion is a flaw of the mind.
You want to talk about genius where mind and emotion are equal partners,
look at Ornette Coleman or John Coltrane. Anyone who downgrades emotion
(or i should say "emotional intelligence") is committing suicide.
2) Even if you say a mind is flawed because it can't be "objective",
( I know some cyberneticians who were saying that we soon won't be
talking in terms of "objective" vs "subjective". Those words will be
obsolete) let me ask a question. Does anyone believe that as two
people become more informed about any subject, as their knowledge and
information increases that they will become in agreement? I think the
answer is no, and not because the mind is flawed.
3) Some of you seem to be making science in general and AI in particular
a religion. Especially with pie-in-the-sky projects of making computers
AI identical to human intelligence. That strikes me as another immortality
project. Let us say for the sake of argument that you could ( sometime in
the year 2525). In that case the product will be necessarily flawed since
the human mind is flawed by your arguments. So what have your gained.
4) In the area of art, I prefer so-called irrationality and surrealism.
it is more interesting.
5) AI should concern itself with solving problems, discovering new ways to
solve and conceptialize problems. It is not as glamorous as making artificial
souls, but more practical and fruitfull.
Jeff "FREE" Beer, PAN recording artist
------------------------------
Date: 7 Oct 87 14:56:14 GMT
From: umn-d-ub!umn-cs!ramarao@rutgers.edu (Bindu Rama Rao)
Subject: Re: Goal of AI: where are we going?
Is the Human mind flawed?
Can we pass such a judgement without knowing anything about the human mind?
Do we really understand how the mind works?
Aren't we trying to model the mind because we are in awe of all the
power the mind posesses?
Is the mind flawed just because humans make decisions based on
their emotional involvement? Isn't the mind used for analysis only
while emotions play a major part in formulating the final decision?
Let's not hastily dismiss the human mind as flawed.
-bindu rama rao.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Oct 87 15:32:59 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!houdi!marty1@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (M.BRILLIANT)
Subject: Re: Goal of AI: where are we going?
In article <2281@umn-cs.UUCP>, ramarao@umn-cs.UUCP (Bindu Rama Rao) writes:
>
> Is the Human mind flawed?
>
> Can we pass such a judgement without knowing anything about the human mind?
>
> Do we really understand how the mind works?
Let's draw an analogy. You are driving an X-Brand car from Pittsburgh to
Atlanta and halfway there it bursts into flame. Without knowing how the
car works you can conclude it was flawed.
Mr X. goes to an employment interview and gets angry or flustered and
says something that causes him to be rejected. Without knowing how his
mind works you can conclude it was flawed.
> Aren't we trying to model the mind because we are in awe of all the
> power the mind posesses?
Of course we are. But saying the mind is enormously powerful is not
contradicted by saying it's not perfect. A car with a big engine is
enormously powerful and almost certainly not perfect.
> Is the mind flawed just because humans make decisions based on
> their emotional involvement? Isn't the mind used for analysis only
> while emotions play a major part in formulating the final decision?
Factually, we know the mind is flawed because we observe that it does
not do what we expect of it. As a hypothesis, we can test the idea
that it is flawed because of the action of what we call emotions. As
a further hypothesis, we can also test the idea that emotions motivate
all human activity. Personally, I like both those hypotheses.
Question of definition here: do we agree that emotion, reason,
consciousness, will, etc., are all functions of the mind?
> Let's not hastily dismiss the human mind as flawed.
Who's dismissing it? I know my car is flawed, but I can't afford to
dismiss it. I'm not dismissing my mind either. How could I? :-)
M. B. Brilliant Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
------------------------------
Date: 10 Oct 87 11:24:28 GMT
From: k.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@j.cc.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin)
Subject: Re: Goal of AI: where are we going?
In article <1368@houdi.UUCP>, marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes:
> In article <2281@umn-cs.UUCP>, ramarao@umn-cs.UUCP (Bindu Rama Rao) writes:
> >
> > Is the Human mind flawed?
> >
> > Can we pass such a judgement without knowing anything about the human mind?
> >
> > Do we really understand how the mind works?
>
The human mind is definitely flawed, very fortunately. I do not see how an
intelligent entity can fail to be flawed if it has only the computing power
of the universe available.
I define intelligence as the ability to deal with a _totally unforeseen
situation_. It is easy to give examples in which the amount of information
needed to effect a logical decision would require more memory than the size
of the universe permits. Therefore, dealing with such a situation _requires_
that such extralogical procedures as intuition, judgment, somewhat instinctive
reactions, etc., must be involved. That is not to say that one cannot find out
that certain factors are of lesser importance. But the decision that these
less important factors can or should be ignored is still a matter of judgment.
Therefore, an intelligent treatment of a problem of even moderate complexity
requires that nonrational procedures must be used. These cannot be correct;
at most we can determine in _some_ cases that they are not too bad. In other
cases, we can only hope that we are not too far off.
There is no "rational" intelligent entity for moderately difficult problems!
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (ARPA or UUCP) or hrubin@purccvm.bitnet
------------------------------
Date: 10 Oct 87 17:01:55 GMT
From: udel!montgome@cs.rochester.edu (Kevin Montgomery)
Subject: Re: Goal of AI: where are we going?
>> In article <2281@umn-cs.UUCP>, ramarao@umn-cs.UUCP (Bindu Rama Rao) writes:
>> > Is the Human mind flawed?
C'mon guys, lighten up for a sec. Flawed implies a defect from it's
design. Therefore, if someone's mind doesn't do what it's designed
to do (namely help keep the organism alive, etc), THEN it's flawed
(ex: schizos, manics, etc). A "normal" person does NOT have a flawed
mind, just an illogical one. What do you expect when the old brain
(producing emotions, feelings and the like) is still in the design?
So the $64K answer is: no, the mind is not (usually) flawed, but it
is illogical. Is having an illogical mind a problem? Hell no! It's
what keeps organisms going- drives for self-preservation, procreation,
etc. While striving to be logical IS (i feel) a noble aspiration,
there's no way to totally shut out something like emotions so deeply
ingrained into the mental architecture. (one may even argue that
if we were to consider all things logically, then civilization would
die out rather quickly, but i'm not gonna touch that one) At any rate,
if you want to do some neato cognitive modelling stuff, then you've
got to (eventually) incorporate the functions of the old brain (illogic)
with the logical processes we normally consider. If you're gonna
do some neato expert system stuff involving pure logic, then don't worry
about it. `kay? `kay.
--
Kevin Desperately-trying-to-get-into-Stanford Montgomery
------------------------------
Date: 11 Oct 87 18:34:10 GMT
From: yale!krulwich@husc6.harvard.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Re: Goal of AI: where are we going?
In article <1368@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes:
>Factually, we know the mind is flawed because we observe that it does
>not do what we expect of it.
If I expect my car to take me to the moon and it doesn't, is it
flawed?? No, rather my expectation of it is wrong. Similarly, we
shouldn't say that the mind is flawed until we're sure that our
definition of "intelligence" is perfect.
> As a hypothesis, we can test the idea
>that it is flawed because of the action of what we call emotions.
Why do you assume that emotions are a flaw?? Just maybe emotions are
at the core of intellegence, and logic is just a side issue.
>As
>a further hypothesis, we can also test the idea that emotions motivate
>all human activity. Personally, I like both those hypotheses.
If you think that emotions motivate all human activity, why do you
dismiss emotions as a flaw in the mind?? It seems to me that human
activity is a lot more "intelligent" than any AI system as of yet.
>Question of definition here: do we agree that emotion, reason,
>consciousness, will, etc., are all functions of the mind?
Yes, and not necessarily "flawed" ones.
Bruce Krulwich
ARPA: krulwich@yale.arpa Being true heros,
or krulwich@cs.yale.edu they lept into action.
Bitnet: krulwich@yalecs.bitnet (Bullwinkle)
UUCP: {harvard, seismo, ihnp4}!yale!krulwich (Any B-CC'ers out there??)
------------------------------
Date: 12 Oct 87 00:45:58 GMT
From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: Goal of AI: where are we going?
krulwich@yale.ARPA (Bruce Krulwich):
If I expect my car to take me to the moon and it doesn't, is it
flawed??
If you expect your car to take you to the moon, then I would say
your mind *is* flawed...
--JoSH
:^)
------------------------------
Date: 11 Oct 87 16:55:37 GMT
From: psuvax1!vu-vlsi!swatsun!scott@husc6.harvard.edu (Jay Scott)
Subject: Is the human mind flawed?
Here's how I think about it:
"Flawed" I take to mean "not-good in some particular respect." And "good"
does not have a fixed, absolute meaning. If you ask, "Is this rock good?"
I have to reply, "What for?" It may be good used as a piece of gravel but
bad used as a gemstone!
So in the same way, you may ask "Is the human mind flawed?" I answer
"Depends. Is there something you wanted to use one for?" If you think
minds just are, then "flawed" doesn't apply (neither does "perfect").
But if you want to use a mind to, say, do math, you're likely to be annoyed
at its tendency to make mistakes--a flaw, for your purposes.
--
Your opinion may vary. I can only define words as I use them, not as you may.
Jay Scott
...bpa!swatsun!scott
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
