Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 5 Issue 236
AIList Digest Friday, 16 Oct 1987 Volume 5 : Issue 236
Today's Topics:
Semantics - Is the Human Mind Flawed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 87 10:35 EST
From: "Linda G. Means" <MEANS@gmr.com>
Subject: ailist discussion of "flawed minds"
In AIList V5 #233,
ihnp4!homxb!houdi!marty1@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (M.BRILLIANT)
writes:
>Factually, we know the mind is flawed because we observe that
>it does not do what we expect of it.
Okay, let's take as given that the human mind is flawed.
If that judgment is the result of reasoning by a human mind
(i.e. a flawed mind), how can we take the judgment to be true?
Seems not unlike the paradox which arises from the statement,
"Everything I say is a lie".
Linda G. Means
GM Research Laboratories
means%gmr.com@relay.cs.net
[Ah, but that's a far cry from "Some things I say are lies." -- KIL]
------------------------------
Date: 12 Oct 87 17:12:39 GMT
From: ucsdhub!jack!man!sdsu!caasi@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Richard Caasi)
Subject: Re: Is the human mind flawed?
If the human mind was flawless we wouldn't be debating this issue.
To determine how flawed the human mind is we need to first define the
characteristics of a flawless or perfect mind. Any suggestions?
It certainly shouldn't have the limitations of Turing machines, that
is, it should be able to "solve" non-computable functions non-
algorithmically. Given perfect information as input, its output
should be likewise perfect, right? Or perhaps its output should
always be perfect regardless of how imperfect or incomplete its
inputs are. (Whcih violates the CS law of Garbage In Garbage Out)
Drawing an analogy with ideal operational amplifiers
in electronics, the perfect mind can be characterized by infinite
memory, zero learning time, zero search and recall time, sensory
perception with infinite bandwidth (flat frequency response from
negative infinity to positive infinity), zero computation time, and
knowledge of future inputs, etc., etc. (What do we have - God?)
Question: Does such a mind exist or is nothing perfect in the real
world?
------------------------------
Date: 12 Oct 87 20:12:26 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.)
Subject: Re: Goal of AI: where are we going?
In article <578@louie.udel.EDU> montgome@udel.EDU (Kevin Montgomery) writes:
>>> 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
Having read the postings which followed this, consider that the human eye
has many blind spots, the largest where the optic nerve is and many
smaller ones. The ear isn't perfect either. Also consider how we can
be fooled by Necker illusions, visual, verbal, auditory, etc. Flawed
many be too strong a word. Is the greater "mind" be flawed if it's
components and inputs are "flawed?" I prefer the "Just is" hypothesis.
On emotions: you may have something there, but AI people are not the people
to answer that question. A fellow I corresponded with on AI-Digest a
while noted he had a difficult time writing a Social Worker expert
system. Harder to dish out artificial compassion than artificial
Discrimination.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize."
{hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
------------------------------
Date: 12 Oct 87 20:23:46 GMT
From: gatech!pyr!kludge@rutgers.edu (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Is the human mind flawed?
If a thing is not perfect, it is flawed def. flaw
The human mind is a thing if it weren't, we wouldn't
talk about it
Nothing is perfect My mother said this
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The human mind is flawed
QED.
--
Scott Dorsey Kaptain_Kludge
SnailMail: ICS Programming Lab, Georgia Tech, Box 36681, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
Internet: kludge@pyr.gatech.edu
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!gitpyr!kludge
------------------------------
Date: 12 Oct 87 15:11:38 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!houdi!marty1@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (M.BRILLIANT)
Subject: Is the human mind flawed?
In article <17489@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, krulwich@gator..arpa
(Bruce Krulwich) writes:
> 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.
There's a subtlety here. Your car is obviously not designed to go to
the moon; it won't come near trying. But I suggested that your car
should take you "from Pittsburgh to Atlanta" without bursting into
flame. That's not an unreasonable expectation, because, though it
probably wasn't designed for those particular roads, cars like it
usually do it successfully. Similarly, if I usually go through
interviews without "bursting into flame," I expect to be able to do it
regularly, and if once I screw up, I have to conclude that there is a
flaw somewhere.
> > 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.
Note, please. I did not "assume that emotions are a flaw." First, I
argued that there was a flaw, and though that argument was challenged,
my reliance on that argument is obviously "why" I went on to the next
step. Second, I obviously did not "assume" anything about emotions; I
offered a hypothesis about emotions. "Why" I offered that hypothesis
is that it was suggested by an article I quoted:
== > Is the mind flawed just because humans make decisions based on
== > their emotional involvement? ....
> 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.
Clearly I did not dismiss anything. Quoting again from my article:
== > 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? :-)
Without trying to embarrass anybody, I would like to ask whether Mr.
Krulwich thought he was answering logically, and, if so, whether his
expectation that he could do so was any more reasonable than the
hypothetical expectation that his car could take him to the moon. I
think we try to do things with our minds that they can not successfully
do. Even if the flaw is in the expectation, the expectation is created
by the mind, so to argue that the flaw is not in the mind requires
great subtlety. (I am sure many readers will find my argument flawed.)
I might suggest that Mr. Krulwich answered more emotionally than
logically, but that statement would not only introduce "emotion" as an
undefined term, but also invite us to "dismiss" what seem to be some
vital mental processes. Just as physicians accept the human body for
what it is, without embarrassment, so should we accept the human mind.
Physically, all human bodies are different, and none are perfect. Why
then should anyone insist that the mind is unflawed?
M. B. Brilliant Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
------------------------------
Date: 13 Oct 87 12:47:26 GMT
From: PT.CS.CMU.EDU!SPICE.CS.CMU.EDU!spe@cs.rochester.edu (Sean
Engelson)
Subject: What the hell does flawed mean, anyway?
Could someone please define flawed, as it applies (or may apply) to
the mind? Flawed with respect to the performance of what action?
Formal logic? Aristotelian logic? Type theory? NP-complete
computations? Getting emotional? You need referents! I think that
most people are just talking past each other, as they are using
different referents. I am not getting involved yet, as I don't think
that I know what referents are appropriate---if anyone thinks they
know: What are they???
-Sean-
------------------------------
Date: 10 Oct 87 10:27:50 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!killer!usl!khl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
(Calvin K. H. Leung)
Subject: Re: Goal of AI: where are we going? (the right way?)
In article <1270@isl1.ri.cmu.edu> cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young)
writes:
> I do believe that there is some mechanism to minds (or perhaps a variety of
> them). One reason why I am interested in AI (perhaps this is very Cog. Sci.
> of me, actually) is because I think perhaps it will help elucidate the ways
> in which the human mind works, and thus increase our understanding of human
> behaviour.
I agree with the idea that there must be some mechanisms that our
minds are using. But the different reasoning methods (proba-
bilistic reasoning, for instance) that we are studying in the
area of AI are not the way one reasons: we never use the Bayes'
Theorem in our thinking process. The use of those reasoning
methods, in my point of view, will never help increase our under-
standing of human behavior. Because our minds just don't work
that way.
Calvin K H Leung
--
Calvin K. H. Leung USL P.O. Box 41821
Lafayette, LA 70504
khl@usl.usl.edu.csnet 318-237-7128
------------------------------
Date: 14 Oct 87 15:47:09 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!genesis!odyssey!gls@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
(g.l.sicherman)
Subject: Re: Flawed human minds
> 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.
And you could be wrong. Most likely Mr. X. didn't want the job after
all. He only wanted you to think he wanted the job. Give him credit
for some intelligence!
Of course Mr. X. is flawed from the company's point of view. But he's
flawed from his own point of view only if he can get what he wants and
doesn't. When this happens, the problem is not emotions but habits.
> Factually, we know the mind is flawed because we observe that it does
> not do what we expect of it.
By this criterion, we are all flawed. It brings to mind the one and only
law in J. B. Cabell's land of Philistia: "Do what seems to be expected of
you."
--
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...!ihnp4!odyssey!gls
------------------------------
Date: Wed 14 Oct 87 21:36:57-PDT
From: Ken Laws <Laws@KL.SRI.Com>
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI.COM
Subject: Re: Flawed human minds
I haven't read Cabell, but I find the quote interesting. I've been
saying something similar to family and friends for several years now --
people (esp. children) do what is expected of them, not what is demanded
of them. If teachers understood this they could get far more out of
their students. Expectation sets up a feedback loop in which the teacher
does whatever is necessary to elicit the desired behavior, whereas requests,
demands, etc., are events rather than processes. Similar feedback loops
are operative in the "lead" of a good dancer or the "ki" of a martial
artist.
-- Ken
------------------------------
Date: 14 Oct 87 00:19:54 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!houdi!marty1@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (M.BRILLIANT)
Subject: Re: What the hell does flawed mean, anyway?
In article <160@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, spe@SPICE.CS.CMU.EDU (Sean Engelson) writes:
>
> Could someone please define flawed, as it applies (or may apply) to
> the mind? Flawed with respect to the performance of what action?
> Formal logic? Aristotelian logic? Type theory? NP-complete
> computations? Getting emotional? ....
All of the above.
> ... You need referents! I think that
> most people are just talking past each other, as they are using
> different referents. I am not getting involved yet, as I don't think
> that I know what referents are appropriate---if anyone thinks they
> know: What are they???
I claim that with respect to any referent the mind is flawed.
If any reader can define any referent with respect to which the
mind is perfect, I will admit my argument is flawed.
M. B. Brilliant Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
------------------------------
Date: 15 Oct 87 00:35:32 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!houdi!marty1@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (M.BRILLIANT)
Subject: Re: Flawed human minds
In article <331@odyssey.ATT.COM>, gls@odyssey.ATT.COM (g.l.sicherman)
writes (quoting from something I wrote):
> > 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.
>
> And you could be wrong. Most likely Mr. X. didn't want the job after
> all. He only wanted you to think he wanted the job. Give him credit
> for some intelligence!
>
> Of course Mr. X. is flawed from the company's point of view. But he's
> flawed from his own point of view only if he can get what he wants and
> doesn't. When this happens, the problem is not emotions but habits.
Also flawed from Mr. X's point of view. Sicherman argues that X only
seemed to get angry or flustered, in order to make sure the company
didn't make him an offer, because during the interview he decided he
didn't want a job with them. If I attributed Mr. X's actions to
intelligence I would expect him to conclude gracefully, let them make
an offer, and reject the offer, without making a bad impression on
somebody who later might be in a position to offer him a job in another
company. And I don't care whether you blame emotions or habits.
> > Factually, we know the mind is flawed because we observe that it does
> > not do what we expect of it.
>
> By this criterion, we are all flawed....
That's exactly what I meant.
M. B. Brilliant Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
