...If I may just point out one quick thing: it's important here to distinguish between "brain" and "mind". The former is bio-mechanical, if you will... Studying the way nurons interface, interact, develop, and the like, and how the 'subsystems' of the brain function. I think this is *not* important to AI, though it would be interesting to hear Pollack's views. The brain is just the harware, and it's *totally* different than the hardware AI is using... (Though there are obvious similarities.)
The latter--study of the mind--is more like psychology. As it pertains to AI, it's most important at the 'low-level': things like object-recognition, language processing, learning processes, and the like--and, as you might judge from the names of these classes, they are *intricately* tied to the development of AI.
Perhaps a more interesting question would be to reverse yours.
Is the study of the human mind *inhibiting* AI research? What research in the past has their been with the idea of "thinking outside the dots", and using not a human paradigm for AI-tasks, but a completely novel one?
I would add to this only a few of my own personal questions from having tried to get into AI:
How can one approach AI from a non-academic point of view? I am not in college--I have a full-time job... How can I contribute? Is there shareware (or commercial software) is out there to help study AI?
My experience, getting into the nitty-gritty of AI, is that it's laiden with mathematics--comeplex math, at that. Is there an approach to AI that isn't founded in mathematics? What can a non-mathematician contribute to the study of AI? Or do I have to bite the bullet?
Friends of mine in CompSci (graduates) have all said "ALife is dead". They encourage me not to persue it, "if I want to work". Do you think the demise of ALife has adversely affected AI research? (For example, Santa Fe's ALife site is stale.)
I would also love to hear your comments on Cyc. Do you think they are going to 'win' the AI race?
Let me just add that I think the creation of AI is perhaps the most critical and meaningful pursuits available to mankind, as a whole. The universe exhibits an amazing capacity to create life--to share in that power as a race is about as ultimate a purpose as I can think of for humanity.
If man was created in God's image, wouldn't that presuppose that man would want to create? "God's image" in this case includes the trait 'creates'. Therefore, man creates. Where does it say (anywhere?!?) that man should not create?
Totally flawed logic.
Also, why should acedcemic research be at all justified by religion?
I recently heard a story on NPR about a group in Massachusetts who started something called the Geek Corps. They go to third-world countries and help companies build up an Internet presence, in the hopes of beefing up internet access for the entire community. Anyway, something to look into.
It would be interesting if Palms could sit on a network as printer devices, so you wouldn't have to go through the hassle of dumping to it otherwise... Usually when I'm on my way to the John, I'm in a rush. It's simple to slap '%' on that email and not have to go through the extended spiel...
I completely agree. "Soul", in my definition, is "human arrogance".
Let's take that a step further... It's conceited to think that humans are the end-all be-all of evolution... That the universe was designed for their presence.
If anything, I think humanity is a stepping stone for something better... And something without a soul, I'm sure. : )
Are you for or against research in artificial intelligence and/or A-Life? A) Creating life is the ultimate human goal. B) Yeah, I think it's okay to create artificial life. C) Yeah, I think it's okay to create artificial life, but we need to have total control over it. D) No, I don't think humanity should be messing with things like creating artificial intelligence. E) You're going to hell for even asking this quesiton! F) Hemos sucks....Personally, I'm a believer in (A). Articles like this *really* irk me.
As a SciFi writer I've toyed with the idea of a virtual nation for some time... (I called mine the SFM: Society of Free Minds.) The problem, of course, was in the legal interaction of SFM members and non-SFM members... How do the laws mesh? When they are in conflict, which takes precidence?
I would love to see this work. When it does, I will gladly revoke my American citizenship. However, Rome wasn't built in a day (Did I really just say that? Oh god...) and the idea of getting this up and running in one month is ludicrous. However, if they get enough intelligent people willing to dig into international law, and they figure things out, more power to them! I'm sure once the first virutal nation is legally established, dozens more will quickly follow suit. The idea of nationality being based on ideology rather than geography is fascinating. Technically very difficult to manage, but interesting.
Why is this such a bad thing?:) As you say, it happens in art, it happens in music... And because of it, art and music continue to evolve and expand. The next alternative will be better still than Linux, as Linux is better than windows, and so on. It's natural. It's evolution. I (personally) don't see this as being so tragic and sad... I see it as exciting, and as having enormous potential! The people who move away from Linux when it gets a majority hold should be complimented for their grasp of how the universe works. It's all about growth and improvement. These are things we should be attracted to as humans (the greatest vehicle for change that nature has to offer), not things we should shun.
Slashdot Mirror
...If I may just point out one quick thing: it's important here to distinguish between "brain" and "mind". The former is bio-mechanical, if you will... Studying the way nurons interface, interact, develop, and the like, and how the 'subsystems' of the brain function. I think this is *not* important to AI, though it would be interesting to hear Pollack's views. The brain is just the harware, and it's *totally* different than the hardware AI is using... (Though there are obvious similarities.)
The latter--study of the mind--is more like psychology. As it pertains to AI, it's most important at the 'low-level': things like object-recognition, language processing, learning processes, and the like--and, as you might judge from the names of these classes, they are *intricately* tied to the development of AI.
Perhaps a more interesting question would be to reverse yours.
Is the study of the human mind *inhibiting* AI research? What research in the past has their been with the idea of "thinking outside the dots", and using not a human paradigm for AI-tasks, but a completely novel one?
I would add to this only a few of my own personal questions from having tried to get into AI:
I would also love to hear your comments on Cyc. Do you think they are going to 'win' the AI race?
Let me just add that I think the creation of AI is perhaps the most critical and meaningful pursuits available to mankind, as a whole. The universe exhibits an amazing capacity to create life--to share in that power as a race is about as ultimate a purpose as I can think of for humanity.
Best of luck to you.
Diclaimer: I am not christian, I am not Jewish.
If man was created in God's image, wouldn't that presuppose that man would want to create? "God's image" in this case includes the trait 'creates'. Therefore, man creates. Where does it say (anywhere?!?) that man should not create?
Totally flawed logic.
Also, why should acedcemic research be at all justified by religion?
This brings whole new meaning to the term "Quad Damage".
Perhaps it's just a frustrated outlashing that lawyers who rule on programming don't say "IANAP" at the end of their findings.
Which is worse--us or them?
I recently heard a story on NPR about a group in Massachusetts who started something called the Geek Corps. They go to third-world countries and help companies build up an Internet presence, in the hopes of beefing up internet access for the entire community. Anyway, something to look into.
NO no no no no.
The process that gives off the hydrogen is caused when you starve the algea of oxygen AND put it in a sulpher-free environment.
THAT would never happen in the wild.
No worries.
It would be interesting if Palms could sit on a network as printer devices, so you wouldn't have to go through the hassle of dumping to it otherwise... Usually when I'm on my way to the John, I'm in a rush. It's simple to slap '%' on that email and not have to go through the extended spiel...
I completely agree. "Soul", in my definition, is "human arrogance".
Let's take that a step further... It's conceited to think that humans are the end-all be-all of evolution... That the universe was designed for their presence.
If anything, I think humanity is a stepping stone for something better... And something without a soul, I'm sure. : )
Are you for or against research in artificial intelligence and/or A-Life? A) Creating life is the ultimate human goal. B) Yeah, I think it's okay to create artificial life. C) Yeah, I think it's okay to create artificial life, but we need to have total control over it. D) No, I don't think humanity should be messing with things like creating artificial intelligence. E) You're going to hell for even asking this quesiton! F) Hemos sucks. ...Personally, I'm a believer in (A). Articles like this *really* irk me.
I would love to see this work. When it does, I will gladly revoke my American citizenship. However, Rome wasn't built in a day (Did I really just say that? Oh god...) and the idea of getting this up and running in one month is ludicrous. However, if they get enough intelligent people willing to dig into international law, and they figure things out, more power to them! I'm sure once the first virutal nation is legally established, dozens more will quickly follow suit. The idea of nationality being based on ideology rather than geography is fascinating. Technically very difficult to manage, but interesting.
Wish them luck, I say.
Why is this such a bad thing? :) As you say, it happens in art, it happens in music... And because of it, art and music continue to evolve and expand. The next alternative will be better still than Linux, as Linux is better than windows, and so on. It's natural. It's evolution. I (personally) don't see this as being so tragic and sad... I see it as exciting, and as having enormous potential! The people who move away from Linux when it gets a majority hold should be complimented for their grasp of how the universe works. It's all about growth and improvement. These are things we should be attracted to as humans (the greatest vehicle for change that nature has to offer), not things we should shun.