From: Colin Hales (colin@versalog.com.au)
Date: Sun Jan 06 2002 - 16:57:28 MST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of J. R. Molloy
> Sent: Monday, 7 January 2002 4:44 AM
>
> Trying to develop AI while ignoring cognitive neuroscience is
> like trying to
> repair brain damage by correcting bad grammar.
> It's especially important to understand the silicon in the
> computer running a
> word processor before we can get anywhere at all with
> debugging a given word
> processor. We need to know what kind of computer it is before
> we can decide on
> an appropriate program to run on it. Unix software doesn't
> work very well on
> Apple computers. In fact, it is the architecture of the CPU
> which dictates how
> the operating system and application programs are designed,
> and hence, how the
> software can be debugged.
> Trying to develop AI while ignoring cognitive neuroscience is
> like trying to
> repair brain damage by correcting bad grammar.
Absolutely. I like to think of Computational Neurophysiology is to hardware
as Cognitive Neurophysiology is to software. My personal quest for AI
started as totally computational for the reasons you outline - but it is, in
the end , only one part of the big picture.
My observation, put for comment, was that it's not A.I. that is the goal
with most of the industry out there and that the computational/biological
side is mostly what's happening and it's not in a quest for AI. At least
that's what it looks like. In that light it's no wonder we're not "hip deep
in AI", as Mr Reason put it.
cheers
colin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:11:26 MST