"Herman Jurjus" <········@hetnet.nl> wrote on Tue, 6 May 2003:
>
> [...] Implementations are fun (and are important, as well).
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/jsaimind.html -- AI implemented.
> I would even go further, and say that a logical formalism
> intended for AI is no good if there is no chance that an
> implementation will ever be found.
http://www.cis.temple.edu/~pwang/203-AI/Lecture/203-1126.htm --
a whole list of Unified AI Systems.
>
> But the point i tried to make was that having *only*
> a computer program would be of limited interest.
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/theory5.html -- How the Mind Works.
> After all, it is *understanding* of rationality and reasoning
> that is most valuable. Computer languages come and go.
Lisp has primacy in AI.
>
> Cheers,
> Herman Jurjus
On 6 May 2003 01:57:39 -0800, ·····@victoria.tc.ca (Arthur T. Murray)
wrote:
>"Herman Jurjus" <········@hetnet.nl> wrote on Tue, 6 May 2003:
>>
>> [...] Implementations are fun (and are important, as well).
>
>http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/jsaimind.html -- AI implemented.
>
>> I would even go further, and say that a logical formalism
>> intended for AI is no good if there is no chance that an
>> implementation will ever be found.
>
>http://www.cis.temple.edu/~pwang/203-AI/Lecture/203-1126.htm --
>a whole list of Unified AI Systems.
>>
>> But the point i tried to make was that having *only*
>> a computer program would be of limited interest.
>
>http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/theory5.html -- How the Mind Works.
>
>> After all, it is *understanding* of rationality and reasoning
>> that is most valuable. Computer languages come and go.
>
>Lisp has primacy in AI.
>>
Perhaps, but LISP has been around a lot longer than AI. So far as I
have been able to tell, all we have in terms of computerized AI are so
many speculations and claims that certain kinds of processing
correspond to human reason and other cognitive faculties.
Regards - Lester
remove DEL in address for email
·············@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<·················@netnews.att.net>...
> Perhaps, but LISP has been around a lot longer than AI. So far as I
> have been able to tell, all we have in terms of computerized AI are so
> many speculations and claims that certain kinds of processing
> correspond to human reason and other cognitive faculties.
>
My PL book says otherwise:
"John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky formed MIT's Artificial Intelligence
Project in 1958. In 1958-1959, McCarthy designed LISP, which became
operational in 1959. McCarthy also served on the ALGOL design team."
The web is full of colorful descriptions of how the first LISP
interpreter was bootstrapped (or should be full of!)
Know thy language!!!!
__
Eray (exa) Ozkural <erayo at cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
On 6 May 2003 14:41:20 -0700, ·····@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa)
wrote:
>·············@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<·················@netnews.att.net>...
>> Perhaps, but LISP has been around a lot longer than AI. So far as I
>> have been able to tell, all we have in terms of computerized AI are so
>> many speculations and claims that certain kinds of processing
>> correspond to human reason and other cognitive faculties.
>>
>
>
>My PL book says otherwise:
>"John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky formed MIT's Artificial Intelligence
>Project in 1958. In 1958-1959, McCarthy designed LISP, which became
>operational in 1959. McCarthy also served on the ALGOL design team."
So, unless we assume that actual AI applicaitions emerged at the same
time, they would have to have emerged later.
>
>The web is full of colorful descriptions of how the first LISP
>interpreter was bootstrapped (or should be full of!)
The history of computing is full of fascinating stories. I don't think
the problem is one of language. I could program the application in
COBOL if I fully understood the application. It's always been amusing
to consider the confusion of application and language. We don't really
have any idea, that I'm aware of, of the best language for AI. All we
actually know are the claims of various scientists and programmers.
>
>Know thy language!!!!
>
Actually, I know several. And I'm still waiting for the optimal AI
programming language.
>__
>Eray (exa) Ozkural <erayo at cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
Regards - Lester
remove DEL in address for email
·············@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<·················@netnews.att.net>...
> So, unless we assume that actual AI applicaitions emerged at the same
> time, they would have to have emerged later.
uh? you mean "although they founded AI field, their work doesn't count
as AI" that would be rubbish so maybe you mean something else? *sigh*
On 7 May 2003 15:34:06 -0700, ·····@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa)
wrote:
>·············@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<·················@netnews.att.net>...
>> So, unless we assume that actual AI applicaitions emerged at the same
>> time, they would have to have emerged later.
>
>uh? you mean "although they founded AI field, their work doesn't count
>as AI" that would be rubbish so maybe you mean something else? *sigh*
AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages. It is only
with emergence of the latter, that scientists and programmers made the
assumption that digital circuits and stored programs solved their
conceptual problems.
Regards - Lester
remove DEL in address for email
On Thu, 08 May 2003 01:47:02 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:
>AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages.
?????
Data, please.
--
Best Wishes,
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON
"Not that brains are everything --
you'll also need a skull to put them in." (Nancy Franklin, 1997)
"Wolf Kirchmeir" <········@sympatico.can> wrote in message
········································@news1.sympatico.ca...
> On Thu, 08 May 2003 01:47:02 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:
>
> >AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages.
>
> ?????
>
> Data, please.
In some way, Leibniz was already doing AI. And he had predecessors: Ramon
Lull and (with a bit of handwaving) even the logicians during the scholastic
period. So, in a way Aristotle started the subject... ;-) )
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
In article <··············@ID-110648.news.dfncis.de>, Herman Jurjus
<········@hetnet.nl> writes
>
>"Wolf Kirchmeir" <········@sympatico.can> wrote in message
>········································@news1.sympatico.ca...
>> On Thu, 08 May 2003 01:47:02 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>> >AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages.
>>
>> ?????
>>
>> Data, please.
>
>In some way, Leibniz was already doing AI. And he had predecessors: Ramon
>Lull and (with a bit of handwaving) even the logicians during the scholastic
>period. So, in a way Aristotle started the subject... ;-) )
>
>Cheers,
>Herman Jurjus
>
That seems like a fair appraisal. Certainly with Frege's 1879 work.
Which is also the date I would take for the de-cognitivization of
reasoning.
--
David Longley
On Wed, 07 May 2003 22:24:02 -0400 (EDT), "Wolf Kirchmeir"
<········@sympatico.can> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2003 01:47:02 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:
>
>>AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages.
>
>?????
>
>Data, please.
Here you have me. Just a bald unsubstantiated impression based on
various forms of technological insight and innovation over certainly
the last couple of hundred years from zombies to Frankenstein to
robots. Perhaps, I should have said ai instead of AI. I know where the
term robot comes from but not the term AI.
>
>
>
>--
>Best Wishes,
>Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON
>"Not that brains are everything --
>you'll also need a skull to put them in." (Nancy Franklin, 1997)
>
>
Regards - Lester
remove DEL in address for email
Lester Zick wrote:
> On 7 May 2003 15:34:06 -0700, ·····@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa)
> wrote:
>
>>·············@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message
>>news:<·················@netnews.att.net>...
>>> So, unless we assume that actual AI applicaitions emerged at the same
>>> time, they would have to have emerged later.
>>
>>uh? you mean "although they founded AI field, their work doesn't count
>>as AI" that would be rubbish so maybe you mean something else? *sigh*
>
> AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages. It is only
> with emergence of the latter, that scientists and programmers made the
> assumption that digital circuits and stored programs solved their
> conceptual problems.
Thats a bit of a stretch...
The term "AI" is indeed very young and was invented from "those scientists
and programmers".
The idea behind AI - the creation of an intelligent artificial system - is
not what was behind the intentions of aristotle and others mentioned in
this thread. More historically interesting in this part are maybe Charles
Babbage and Ada Byron.
AI is _not_ a field to only reason about the human mind - reasoning about
the human mind is only the mean not the goal.
ciao,
Jochen Schmidt
·············@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<·················@netnews.att.net>...
>
> AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages. It is only
> with emergence of the latter, that scientists and programmers made the
> assumption that digital circuits and stored programs solved their
> conceptual problems.
>
It wasn't called AI then. We are talking about the term "Artificial
Intelligence" and there is a certain date at which the term was
conceived, and there is another date at which LISP was conceived. AI
came before LISP, but NOT a lot longer than computer languages if you
consider Plankalkul a PL.
Are you smoking crack?
First you say LISP has been around a lot longer than AI, and then you
say AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages? Whatever
you are smoking please give it to me. (I mean what you are saying
isn't funny or stimulating in any way)
AI obviously isn't simply renaming mathematics or philosophy of mind.
__
exa
On 9 May 2003 08:58:11 -0700, ·····@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa)
wrote:
>·············@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<·················@netnews.att.net>...
>>
>> AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages. It is only
>> with emergence of the latter, that scientists and programmers made the
>> assumption that digital circuits and stored programs solved their
>> conceptual problems.
>>
>
>It wasn't called AI then. We are talking about the term "Artificial
>Intelligence" and there is a certain date at which the term was
>conceived, and there is another date at which LISP was conceived. AI
>came before LISP, but NOT a lot longer than computer languages if you
>consider Plankalkul a PL.
>
>Are you smoking crack?
Frankly, I thought I was talking about artificial insemination.
>
>First you say LISP has been around a lot longer than AI, and then you
>say AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages? Whatever
>you are smoking please give it to me. (I mean what you are saying
>isn't funny or stimulating in any way)
Yes, I noticed this as well. What I recommended to Wolf was that I
should have been using AI in one case and ai in others. But the point
is nugatory at this juncture. I think people understand what I meant,
that ai goes back a long way, and the search for appropriate tools has
generated a lot of dead ends.
I don't think tools are the issue. Understanding the concept is the
issue, after which we can develop whatever optimal tools may be
necessary, or we can just implement the concept with whatever tools we
have.
>
>AI obviously isn't simply renaming mathematics or philosophy of mind.
No, but ai frequently is. Every technological advance with even a
tenuous connection has been heralded as an prototype for ai.
>
>__
>exa
Regards - Lester
remove DEL in address for email