Vladimir, On 4/11/08, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hence, simulational System Dynamics must be confined to systems whose > > operation can be observed or instrumented. Unfortunately, this lets out > most > > of the REALLY important real-world problems, especially medicine, from > > simulated solution. That reasoning new cures for medical conditions that > are > > unknown to the computer at once appears to be SO difficult, yet is > > relatively easy given the right approach, is why I/we chose chronic > illness, > > the hardest part of medicine, as our demo. > > > > Why does it follow? There is only a difference of degree. If you've > got a messy real-world problem, you know little, if you have an > algorithm giving the solution, you know all. The trick is to be able > to benefit from many intermediate grades of specification.
This has two different answers: #1: When your doctor has just told you that you have something incurable (I have been there) is a really bad time to start a large research project, ESPECIALLY when the answers are already out there, but in small fragments that must be strung together. My own illness took me 4 months to locate the pieces and string them together. This should have only taken a few minutes with something like Dr. Eliza. Why bother simulating something when the research has already been done? #2: The entire world is working on thousands of important research problems. Yes, you CAN apply SD principles and develop a simulation that may help with one of those problems, despite its imperfections. Many of the millions of people in the world are applying SD principles to the thousands of problems right now. Yes, anything that can help with such efforts would be very useful, however... A machine that tracks what EVERYONE is doing, collects the fragments of wisdom that come from every project and has the entire world's wisdom to apply to ANY stated problem, whether or not the person stating the problem has any clue at all what lies inside the computer or what to ask. THAT would be thousands of times more valuable than any one SD tool, however successful it might be. THAT is what Dr. Eliza was designed to do. YES, something like Dr. Eliza would be more powerful if people had better SD and other tools to perform their research. As things now stand, the Internet is only a library with absolutely NO ability to take fragments from here and there and string them all together to solve a problem. Dr. Eliza's methods makes the information ACTIVE and able to interrelate. I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from developing better research tools. However, the vast majority of existing research is presently inaccessible unless you know exactly what to ask for, and adding more to this inaccessible lot seems to me to be of diminishing value until something like Dr. Eliza is on everyone's desktop to string the bits of wisdom together to solve everyone's real-world problems. THEN would be a good time to switch efforts as you suggest, when the tools are in place to fully utilize the sorts of things that you are looking to develop. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
