From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!panix!fhd Wed Sep 23 16:54:26 EDT 1992
Article 6978 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!panix!fhd
>From: fhd@panix.com (Frank Deutchman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining intelligence - reasoning engines
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.210752.4065@panix.com>
Date: 18 Sep 92 21:07:52 GMT
References: <1992Sep11.00857.16070@ms.uky.edu> <1992Sep13.174128.2843@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <wd3ndxq.stas@netcom.com>
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC
Lines: 25

In article <wd3ndxq.stas@netcom.com> stas@netcom.com (Stanislav Malyshev) writes:
>
>I personally do not agree with this view.  I think that world knowledge
>databases combined with plan segments and frame systems and a method to
>describe memories of sensory experience (some sensory primitives to be
>associated with other knowledge), all dumped into a reasoning engine
>(not a theorem prover mind you), would constitute sufficient "awareness"
>of the world to call this overall system "conscious" of its doings.

What's with the swipe at Prolog? I am especially curious to know how
one would go about building a true reasoning engine, as it would seem
that the design of your reasoning engine is inextricably tied up with
your knowledge representation scheme, given the current state of the
art. Not that I am saying that Prolog is anything resembling a true
reasoning engine, rather I am questioning why you think that a
reasoning engine could not be built in Prolog (or another theorem
prover). For, IMHO, a good chunk of the activity of reasoning can be
seen to be hypothesis generation, testing, and modifying, essentially
boiling  down to theorem work.

Just a question and a thought...

-- 
-frank
(fhd@panix.com)


