Date: Wed 19 Oct 1988 20:34-EDT From: AIList Moderator Nick Papadakis Reply-To: AIList@AI.AI.MIT.EDU Us-Mail: MIT LCS, 545 Tech Square, Rm# NE43-504, Cambridge MA 02139 Phone: (617) 253-6524 Subject: AIList Digest V8 #109 To: AIList@AI.AI.MIT.EDU Status: RO AIList Digest Thursday, 20 Oct 1988 Volume 8 : Issue 109 Philosophy: The Grand Challenge (3 Messages) What the brain is doing when it isn't thinking (3 Messages) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 88 15:29:08 pdt From: Ray Allis Subject: Grand Challenges If AI is to make progress toward machines with common sense, we should first rectify the preposterous inverted notion that AI is somehow a subset of computer science, or call the research something other than "artificial intelligence". Computer science has nothing whatever to say about much of what we call intelligent behavior, particularly common sense. Ray Allis Boeing Computer Services-Commercial Airplane Support CSNET: ray@boeing.com UUCP: bcsaic!ray ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 88 11:48:58 GMT From: uwmcsd1!wsccs!dharvey@uunet.UU.NET (David Harvey) Subject: Re: The Grand Challenge is Foolish In a previous article, John McCarthy writes: > [In reply to message sent Mon 26 Sep 1988 23:22-EDT.] > < part of article omitted > > If John Nagle thinks that "The lesson of the last five years seems to > be that throwing money at AI is not enormously productive.", he is > also confusing science with engineering. It's like saying that the > lesson of the last five years of astronomy has been unproductive. > Progress in science is measured in longer periods than that. Put more succinctly, the payoff of Science is (or should be) increased understanding. The payoff of Engineering on the other hand should be a better widget, a way to accomplish what previously couldn't be done, or a way to save money. Too many people in our society have adopted the narrow perspective that all human endeavors must produce a monetary (or material) result. Whatever happened to the Renaissance ideal of knowledge for knowledge's sake? I am personally fascinated about what we have recently learned about the other planets in our solar system. Does that mean we must reap some sort of material gain out of the endeavor? If we use this type of criteria as our final baseline we may be missing out on some very interesting discoveries. If I read John McCarthy correctly, we are just short-sighted enough not to know whether they will turn into "Engineering" ideas in the future. Kudos to him for pointing this out. dharvey@wsccs The only thing you can know for sure, is that you can't know anything for sure. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Oct 88 14:03 EDT From: PGOETZ%LOYVAX.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Subject: Neural I/O Two important messages which were ignored: Quote #1: >From: peregrine!zardoz!dhw68k!feedme!doug@jpl-elroy.arpa (Doug Salot) > >If we were to accept the premise that Big Science is a Good Thing, >what should our one big goal? I personally think an effort to >develop a true man-machine interface (i.e., neural i/o) would be >the most beneficial in terms of both applications and as a driving >force for several disciplines. Quote #2: >markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins): Why? > > The first thing that comes to mind is our current situation >as regards science -- its increasing specialization. Most people will agree >that this is a trend that has gone way too far ... to the extent that we may >have sacrificed global perspective and competence in our specialists; and >further that it is a trend that needs to be reversed. Yet fewer would dare >to suggest that we can overcome the problem. I dare. One of the most >important functions of AI will be to amplify our own intelligence. In fact, >I believe that time is upon us that this symbiotic relation between human and >potentially intelligent machine is triggering an evolutionary change in our >species as far as its cognitive abilities are concerned. Here's some possiblities for research: Neural format: How the brain stores/retrieves/manipulates data/knowledge/etc., with the goal of learning to hook into this system Neural input: Camera eyes for the blind Artificial ears for the deaf Generic data input Other Neural output: Direct computer interface of some type Neural communications/control systems for quadraplegics I'm looking forward to the day when we'll have little calculator/calendar/watches interfaced with our brains which will tell us the time, notify us of appointments, and do arithmetic. Beyond that, as noted in Mark Hopkins' letter, it may be possible for devices to store & recall information for us (a big data bank which can communicate to your brain all those things we now spend years memorizing - foreign words, the effects of medical drugs, mathematical formulae, chemical compositions of materials, laws & equations of physics, the Gettysburg Address, the complete works of Pink Floyd, etc.) Note that such data might be manually entered at a terminal. (Also note that it might be nearly as good to carry around a small computer with intelligent search capabilities - provided they were allowed in exams....) Does anyone know: how realistic such hopes are? what work is being done towards them? from what discipline (computer science, biology, medical engineering,...) how soon (in decades) advancements might be made? any graduate programs that touch on this (ie the MIT cognitive science dept.)? I gather that a major problem is that those little neurons are too darn small & numerous to link up to... Phil Goetz Nord: What's that sticking out of your hat? PGOETZ@LOYVAX.bitnet Bert: Oh, that's my optical drive. FRED'S BRAIN-MATES: Here's our PhD model for $100,000... our MS for $50,000... our BS for $25,000... and our MBA for $1.75! Shatner & Nimoy in '92! ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 88 21:07:06 GMT From: buengc!bph@bu-cs.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) Subject: Re: Here's one ... In article <409@soleil.UUCP> peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) writes: >>> >>>Have you ever thought about what the brain is doing between thoughts? In article <1116@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >> >>Sleeping. In article <1614@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> cww@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu.UUCP (Charles William Webster) writes: > >Do you mean that between the rapid succession of conscious "moments" >is a sleeplike state, or that there is nothing between these "moments", >except longer periods of sleep? Much current research on dreaming >is converging on the generalization that dreaming is a kind of >"consciousness". If this were true, then what is between dream >thoughts? You may have been joking but I think it would be fascinating >if the the brain was sleeping between "thoughts". But would it be >the sleep of dreams or the sleep of little deaths? I meant that there is no "between thoughts" except for sleep, expecially the deeper sleep, not that associated with partial consciousness, such as REM sleep. --Blair "...with a hedge for whatever non-thinking states meditationalists are able to achieve..." ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 88 05:27:29 GMT From: leah!gbn474@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Gregory Newby) Subject: Re: Here's one ... In a previous article, Blair P. Houghton writes: > >>>Have you ever thought about what the brain is doing between thoughts? > >>Sleeping. > > > > >Do you mean that between the rapid succession of conscious "moments" > >is a sleeplike state, or that there is nothing between these "moments", > >except longer periods of sleep? Research result (unpublished) from a recent conference: Participants were instructed to watch a string of blinking holiday lights (the xmas tree kind, which blink more or less randomly). A beatles' song was played (I forget which one). When polled afterwards, most participants reported seeing the lights blink on and off IN RYTHM to the music. Possible conclusion: consciousness, like most things we can name in nature, oscillates. I leave it for your consideration. --newbs ( gbnewby@rodan.acs.syr.edu gbn474@leah.albany.edu ) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 88 13:52:33 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdcsu!smann@uunet.uu.net (Shannon Mann - I.S.er) Subject: Re: Here's one ... In a previous article, Gregory Newby writes: >Research result (unpublished) from a recent conference: > >Participants were instructed to watch a string of blinking holiday >lights (the xmas tree kind, which blink more or less randomly). >A beatles' song was played (I forget which one). When polled >afterwards, most participants reported seeing the lights blink >on and off IN RYTHM to the music. > >Possible conclusion: consciousness, like most things we can name >in nature, oscillates. > Other possible conclusion: we unconsciously attach meaning to apparently randon patterns i.e. we hear the music, we see the lights, we notice that there are some of the lights lit on the beat, and disregard the rest as noise. Hence, we have a pattern where none existed before. Sounds like pattern- recognition to me. :-) Seriously, I believe Neuro-Linguistics uses tapping, or rubbing motions to influence the pace of communications between two people. Don't know why, just seems to work. >I leave it for your consideration. > >--newbs -=- -=- Shannon Mann -=- smann@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca -=- 'I have no brain, and I must think...' - An Omynous 'If I don't think, AM I' - Another Omynous P.S. I'd like to know what 'oscillating consciousness' is supposed to mean. ------------------------------ End of AIList Digest ********************