Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!ray
From: ray@bcsaic.UUCP (Ray Allis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The limitations of logic
Message-ID: <9020@bcsaic.UUCP>
Date: 5 Dec 88 22:45:39 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services ATC, Seattle
Lines: 25

In <696@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) says:
>In order for a digital system to emulate a neural net adequately,
>it is not necessary to model the entire physical universe, as Ray
>Allis seems to suggest.  It only has to emulate the net.

Emulation, simulation and modelling are all *techniques for analysis*
of the Universe.  The trap analysts get into is to forget that the
model is not identical to the thing modelled.  Emulating, simulating
or modelling a neural net, however "adequately", does not *duplicate*
a neural net or its behavior.  You don't expect Revell models of F-16s
to do much dogfighting, why would you expect a model of a mind to think?

>>You see, all the ai work being done on digital computers is modelling using
>>formal logic.

>Depending on what you mean by "formal logic", this is either false or
>vacuous.  All the work on neural nets uses formal logic too (whether the
>_nets_ do is another matter).

Well sheesh!  How many interpretations of the phrase "formal logic" ARE
there?  I meant "form-al"; of or pertaining to form, disregarding
content.  I realize the phrase is redundant, I can only plead seduction by
common usage.

I meant to include most neural net work in the phrase "ai work".