🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <20206@bcsaic.UUCP> ray@bcsaic.UUCP (Ray Allis) writes:
<>From: norman@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept)
<>This is a dangerous argument to enter for the volume of interaction is
<>high and the quality mixed.  Still, I am confused about one issue, and
<>Drew McDermott's clear and intelligent commentary has attracted me.

<This is the one where he says "[Strong AI] has the advantage of being a
<potent working hypothesis..."?  That may have been true once, for a while,
<but why should it still be accepted after all these years with zip results?

Because nothing has changed to effect its (strong AI) position as a potent
working hypothesis (positively or negatively I might add, as you say "with
zip results).  The lack of results only indicates that the subject matter
is subtle and complex.  With hindsight we can sit back and laugh at all
the early researchers who thought success was just around the corner, but
hindsight or not the abounding confidence of the early days is now clearly
naive to say the least.  But then, for us to whom cognition is a natural
process, and an invisible one for the most part since we are forced to look
at the world through it, it is not surprising that we have vastly
underestimated the scope of this cognition.

Although I found much of the rest of your posting questionable, none of
privided any evidence for or against the strong AI hypothesis.  I challenge
anyone in Searle's camp (claiming strong AI is false) to provide convincing
evidence for this claim.  This is not an invitation to put forward more
arguments like the CR, but to provide hard mathematical proofs based on
experimental evidence.  Note that the absense of such a proof would not
necessarily doom your claim, mearly put it outside the realm of science.
However if you cannot provide a proof, your camp should leave the AI
researchers alone while they continue to explore these fertile areas of
investigation.

Gerry Gleason