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".