Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!psuvax1!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!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: <jqbCzJ6v6.9Hv@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <kovskyCzF8D4.Bxv@netcom.com> <kovskyCzGyMx.ELv@netcom.com> <jqbCzHKJC.B6L@netcom.com> <kovskyCzIvqt.CHn@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 20:13:53 GMT
Lines: 42

In article <kovskyCzIvqt.CHn@netcom.com>, Bob Kovsky <kovsky@netcom.com> wrote:
>	In my view, consciousness and many intellectual functions involve 
>co-ordination of activities where the underlying structural systems are 
>"incongruent," i.e. the structural systems do not fit together in any 
>clear or simple way.  For example, when we describe in words a visual 
>image in order to accomplish a particular purpose, we must co-ordinate a 
>one-dimensional string of words governed by syntactical rules with a 
>three-dimensional visual image governed by the geometry of space and of 
>an inexhaustible richness in a context constrained by the purpose.  This 
>task is, in my view, on principle beyond the reach of computation.

Why?  Please elucidate this principle.

>	Nonetheless, I stand by my earlier remark that AI (in the sense 
>that it asserts "cognition is computation" etc.) has failed to produce 
>results that evidence the truth of the assertion.  Thus my reference 
>to the few "expert systems" that have proved pactical only in limited 
>domains.

This strikes me as argumentum ad ignorantiam.  The claim that cognition is
computation (more accurately, that computation is sufficient for cognition)
is not based upon the results of a set of AI experiments that served as evidence
for the hypothesis.  Therefore, pointing out that no such evidence actually
exists (regardless of the accuracy of the claim) is no counterargument.
At least Lucas, Searle, and Penrose try to argue based upon principle,
although they fail miserably IMO.

>	I also stand by my reference to the capacity of a fly to navigate 
>just about as well as robots guided by 100 MIPS computers.  And I stand 
>by my opinion that those who ignore the capacity of biological neuronal 
>systems to function quickly and competently on the basis of small and 
>slow cognitive units are missing something important.

Who do you know who does such ignoring?  Do you think it impossible to believe
both that understanding how biological mechanisms function is important and
to believe that strong AI has not been shown false in principle?  Perhaps you
believe that everyone should follow the same research program, and thus if Dr.
Moravec's achievements have not reached your standards, that he should drop his
line of research and go duplicate flies.  If you think this approach is
important, then let's see you do the research.
-- 
<J Q B>
