Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Minsky's new article (was: Roger Penro
Message-ID: <jqbCyz8E3.I9x@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <39kfm2$77u@epicycle.lm.com> <39menf$8c0@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <push-0711941937480001@mind.mit.edu> <Cyyq3w.5D1@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 01:34:51 GMT
Lines: 48

In article <Cyyq3w.5D1@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>,
Andrzej Pindor <pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>In article <push-0711941937480001@mind.mit.edu>,
>Pushpinder Singh <push@mit.edu> wrote:
>>In article <39menf$8c0@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu>, hpm@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
>>
>>> Sean Matthews (sean@mpi-sb.mpg.de) wrote:
>>> > Anyway, Scientific American is not Analog magazine; it is supposed to
>>> > be a *bit* more conservative, and this means not publishing what is
>>> > indistinguishable from science fiction (right down to frontspiece
>>> > picture of anthropomorphic robot looking down gently and comfortingly
>>> > into eyes of trusting, and wonderfilled girl).
>>> 
>>> That robot is a prototype version of the latest robot from Rod Brooks'
>>> labs, COG.  COG is controlled by a supercomputer implementing
>>> heirarchies of reflexive behaviors making the robot able to, among
>>> other things, track external visual and auditory objects, by
>>> implementing psychological theories of visual and auditory perception.
>>> The "girl" is Lynn Stein, who is co-principal investigator of the
>>> project.  Your characterization of her is grossly insulting.
>>
>>Actually the woman is Cynthia Ferrell, one of Rod Brooks' most senior
>>graduate students.  Otherwise, though, you're right -- Matthews'
>>characterization of her is grossly insulting.
>>
>>-push
>
>Just curious: why do people (at least the two above) find a characterisation
>"trusting, and wonderfilled" as insulting? Would a characterisation of this
>person as "suspicious, filled with cynicism" be more to the taste of the
>critics? Would she be happier to be described like this? Can one be a scientist
>if one is not "wonderfilled"? And what is wrong with being "trusting"?
>In particular, I find it surprising that Hans Moravec considers "wonderfilled"
>as insulting. Were you not "wonderfilled" at the prospects of AI technology
>when you thought up an idea of "mind children" (which I find quite impressive,
>btw)?

Andrzej, I think you miss the point.  Matthews clearly intended to be critical,
and his "trusting, and wonderfilled" express naivety, which is a "criticism"
that he has already leveled at Minsky.  But the picture is of a professional
woman, not a naive "girl".  From what does Matthews derive his description of
the emotional state of this person?  From the 1/64 sq. in. of white cornea
visible in the photo?  And what about "gently and confortingly" as a description
of four lenses?  Even "anthropomorphic" is rather dubious.  Can we say
"projection", boys and girls?  But when you have an axe to grind, everything
looks like a whetstone.
-- 
<J Q B>
