From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!rutgers!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!nlc Tue Jun  9 10:07:06 EDT 1992
Article 6091 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!rutgers!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!nlc
>From: nlc@media.mit.edu (Nick Cassimatis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Hypothesis: I am a Transducer (Formerly "Virtual Grounding")
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.045522.19139@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 92 04:55:22 GMT
References: <1992Jun2.165029.14097@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1992Jun3.024527.24593@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Jun4.005109.29871@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Lines: 57

In article <1992Jun4.005109.29871@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:
>In article <1992Jun3.024527.24593@news.media.mit.edu> nlc@media.mit.edu (Nick Cassimatis) writes:
>> santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:
>
>There is a relationship between arts and physics or mathematics.
>Impressionists were influnced by the QM and Cubists by Relativity.
>Xenakis is influenced from Markovian Proceses.
>Ancient Greek statues and temples obey to certain eucledian abstract rules.
>The list can be very long.

Though the cubists and the impressionists said they were influenced by
those areas of physics, I really doubt it.  First of all, how many of
them could understand physics?  (The first Impressionist exhebition
was in 1862 -- way before QM.)  Second, I think their talking about
physics is on a par with those people who call the 20th centruy an age
of anxiety and then say that the results of physics were part of the
cause of this.  My opinion on this is that those results were the
cause of no real anxiety (except to scientists!!) but that instead,
they were just something that came out of people's mouths and pens
when they reveled in their anxitety and alienation.  QM and relativity
(along with consciousness and a few others) seem to be these big
bogeys that are thrown into a discussion whenever someone want's to
interject some despair or pessimism or mysticicism.

>>On the relevence of QM to AI: there are many arguments that maintain 
>>that we cannot achieve AI on a computer because a computer can't model 
>>quantum effects.  Even if it can't so what?  
> 
>This is indeed an unfortunate argument.  

It's nice to be in agreement with someone on this!!  I really can't
believe how wide-spread discussions of Quantum Mechanics are.  It
seems they're everywhere.  There was (maybe still is) a big discussion
on sci.phil.meta on the relation between consciousness and quantum
mechanics.  DID ANYONE EVER WONDER WHY YOU RARELY SEE DISCUSSIONS ON
THE RELEVENCE OF QM TO MOTOR CONTROL OR LANGUAGE OR ANY OTHER ASPECT
OF COGNITION?  Why focus only on consciousness?  This phenomena
convinces me even more that that QM is just a wild card that makes
people glassy eyed enough to accept mysticism.

Much talk about Quantum Mechanics a sign of intellectual decadence.

>>I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we got to the point of building 
>>transistors smaller than a neuron without taking quantum effects into 
>>account.  
> 
>Here you are wrong. Certain light diodes are based exactly on this phenomenon.  

I meant to suggest not that we got to the present state of the art
without QM, but to the state of a transistor being smaller than a
neuron -- which happened some years ago -- without QM.  

>But as you said, it is irrelevant to the point of AI.  

But as it is irrelevant, I won't mention it again.

-Nick


