Newsgroups: comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!ub!csn!news-1.csn.net!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!nagle
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Minsky's Future of AI Technology, was: How is AI going?
Message-ID: <nagleDo7vsy.A4E@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <nagleDo55pz.3v3@netcom.com> <4i4euq$mu@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 17:41:22 GMT
Lines: 27
Sender: nagle@netcom11.netcom.com

pitre@n5160d.nrl.navy.mil (Richard Pitre) writes:
>> I (Nagle) wrote:
>>      No, no.  This isn't comp.ai.philosophy.  There are approaches to
>> AI that aren't linguistic in nature.  Some work I like is Brooks' early
>> work, Moravec's certainty grids and the automatic driving work based
>> on them, the phase-locking in Randall Beer's insect brains, Raibert's
>> balance stuff, and Reynolds' flocking.  All these are examples of
>> behavior control systems that are fundamentally non-linguistic and
>> don't use predicate-based logic.

>Philosophy would seem to be completely  contained by language behavior and the  
>idea here, as I see it, is that AI might not be so contained.  So this is a  
>technical matter having to do with behavior in general and the structural or  
>topological limitations of language behavior in particular. Unfortunately I  
>know of no approach to navigating this arena that involves purely 
>extralingual behavior.  

      There are such approaches.  See the references at my web page,
"www.animats.com".

      Of course it's a technical matter.  This is comp.ai, where we
discuss how to do it.  If you want to discuss why it's impossible, go
to comp.ai.philosophy, where you can find others who have already
presented the same argument you're presenting.  I don't mean to be too
harsh, but we've seen this line of reasoning before.

					John Nagle
