Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!allegra!alice!rhh
From: rhh@research.att.com (Ron Hardin <9289-11216> 0112110)
Subject: Re: Does AI make philosophy obsolete?
Message-ID: <DFxqxs.GCL@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
References: <DFvHFv.1Hp@research.att.com> <JMC.95Oct3084423@S <JMC.95Oct3185544@Steam.stanford.edu> <44thq7$jjs@news.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 17:51:28 GMT
Lines: 17
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:33854 comp.ai.philosophy:33360 sci.cognitive:9862 sci.psychology.theory:934

Patrick Juola writes:
>It's probably worth pointing out that human intelligence isn't of much
>use on NP-complete problems either; humans usually don't manage to find
>the optimal solution either.
>
>As a matter of fact, I'm not sure what NP-completeness and "intelligence"
>(artificial or otherwise) have to do with each other in this discussion.
>They're more-or-less orthogonal problem domains.

NP-complete problems are not solvable with blind dumb computation,
at least not big ones.

This is accepted, though, as saying that they can't be solved
by AI either (very reasonably).  Apparently the two domains
are thought at critical moments to be co-extensive, which
puts into question the other moments when talk of emerging
consciousness and intelligence comes up.
