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: Robot autonomy (was Is the mind/brain deterministic?)
Message-ID: <jqbCzHKJC.B6L@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <kovskyCzF8D4.Bxv@netcom.com> <3aghdc$q3s@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <kovskyCzGyMx.ELv@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 23:14:00 GMT
Lines: 33

In article <kovskyCzGyMx.ELv@netcom.com>, Bob Kovsky <kovsky@netcom.com> wrote:
>	My skepticism about the possiblity of self-navigating robotic
>travel was based on my understanding of current technology, not on
>principle.

Oh really?  Somehow your statements

> In earlier posts, Prof. Moravec and I have been exchanging badinage in a
> debate where I contended that one reason AI has not achieved its promised
> breakthroughs has been its turning away from study of biological function
> and its insistence on the universal applicability of computational models.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> That you and your associates need 
> to invest such enormous resources in order to accomplish something that 
> does not even perform as well [as a fly] suggests that there is something missing in 
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> your approach.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>	My sarcastic remark about "world-shaking breakthroughs" stands.  
> After 25 years and billions of dollars, AI has failed to produce.  Other 
> than some useful but minor "expert systems" operating in extremely 
> limited domains, there is very little evidence that the model of 
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> universal mechanical computation has any validity.  And very little 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> return on the investment.

seem to speak to some principle or another.

-- 
<J Q B>
