Re: Cool visual illusion


"feedbackdroids" <feedbackdroids@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133638799.972872.252830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Try to understand the list of 8 items, mentioned previously. Try to
> understand that the items on the list above lead to the items below.
> Try to understand that stopping at items #1 and #2 does not solve the
> problem. Try to understand that to design and build a system, you have
> to go through the entire process. Try to understand systems-level
> problem solving.

The problem is that you seem to fail to comprehend -- even though I pointed
it out to you point-blank -- what that actually means. Neurology MIGHT come
into play at items 4 and 5 on your list, when we get down to doing a
specific implementation of intelligence. Since you claim that you have to
go through the entire process, do you really want to claim that we've done
1 - 3 satisfactorily to enable us to undertake 4 and 5? Where do you think
neurology can help us on items 1 - 3?

I have argued that neurology is not going to be that useful in doing steps
1 - 3 as even things like behaviourism are for reasons that should be clear
to anyone who actually works with computers. It is extremely difficult to
discover algorithms by studying a particular implementation of them. And,
usually, it isn't necessary, since studying what the system does -- this
would be the behaviourist view -- is usually superior to trying to decipher
the implementation. Moreover, if you do so you'll likely copy the bugs as
well -- biologically introduced illusions, for example -- which surely isn't
what we want. So, while neurology will give us SOME useful implementation
and design details, it is not required to create AI ... and so is not as
important as you make it out to be.


.