On Dec 24, 2006, at 4:24 PM, phil henshaw wrote:
I'm a little confused. If AI is the art of replicating the
mechanisms
of human intelligence with machines, doesn't that assume that brain
function is digital?
As I understand it (from nearly three decades of hanging around the
AI people) AI has one major purpose, to understand intelligent
behavior. Whether that behavior is instantiated in humans (one
instance of symbol-processors) or computers (a second instance) is
not the point--the point is to understand what intelligence really
is, or to put it another way, what the two instances of intelligence
have in common so that a general scientific theory of intelligence--
any and all intelligence--can be known.
From the beginning, human intelligence has been used as an example
of intelligent behavior, and therefore well worth understanding.
But human cognitive psychology and AI aren't identical, though they
share many assumptions and techniques. In early AI efforts,
"imitating" human thought ("simulating" the scientists prefer to say)
was a reasonable way to begin. In fifty years, some aspects of human
thought have been surpassed by computers.
However, when computers think, we generally tie them to human
intelligence in some way (mathematical proofs or other means of
verification) because we humans need to understand what they're
doing. The dance is intricate.
Pamela
"My idea of good company, Mr. Elliot, is the company of clever, well-
informed people, who have a great deal of conversation; that is what
I call good company."
"You are mistaken," said he gently, "that is not good company, that
is the best."
Jane Austen, Persuasion
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
