From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!netcomsv!nagle Tue Jan 28 12:15:29 EST 1992
Article 2989 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!netcomsv!nagle
>From: nagle@netcom.COM (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Building Artificial Animals (was Re: Cargo Cult Science)
Message-ID: <1992Jan22.053126.5720nagle@netcom.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 92 05:31:26 GMT
References: <YAMAUCHI.92Jan16220910@heron.cs.rochester.edu> <1992Jan17.232633.12123@a.cs.okstate.edu> <16831@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 19

cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>  Ah but now what you have is something that looks like a mouse but
>>may not be a mouse.  Until you know what a mouse is in its truest and
>>purest ontological form, which would include access to its own 
>>epistemology however rudimentary, I'm afraid all you have is something
>>that resembles and isn't.

      If it has the vision and coordination of a mouse, we will have
the technology to build some really good robots.  Something with 
mouse-level intelligence can probably handle a reasonable fraction of
the jobs in the apparel industry, the fast-food industry, agriculture,
and similar low-skill fields.  Prices will have to come down to, say,
PC levels, but it happened for PCs, it happened for VCRs, it happened
for copiers...

      When something goes into volume production, philosophical
claims that it doesn't work tend to be muted.

					John Nagle


