arguments for all seasons

[GOLDFARB%unb.ca@unbmvs1.csd.unb.ca]

As an explanation of why AI/NN (discrete/continuous)debate is very
important, I simply refer you to the similar situations throughout
the development of physics:

    I might remark that history shows us that reconciling inconsistent
    physical theories is a very good way of making fundamental progress.
    <then some outstanding examples are given>. . . So, many of the most
    far reaching advances of the twentieth century have come about
    because previous theories weren't compatible with one another.
    History teaches us that reconciling incompatibilities between
    theories is a good way to make really fundamental progress.
    (Edward Witten, in Superstrings: A theory of Everything? eds. P.C.W.
    Davies and J.Brown, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988, pp.97-8)

Since it appears that some of our neurobiological friends feel somewhat
left out of the debate, let me explain why I think they "would all be
wise to be humble and to listen well." Again, we should turn to physics:

    The theory of relativity is a fine example of the fundamental
    character of the modern development of theoretical science. The
    hypotheses become steadily more abstract and remote from experience.
    On the other hand, it gets nearer to the grand aim of all science,
    which is to cover the greatest possible number of empirical facts by
    logical deduction from the smallest possible number of hypotheses or
    axioms. Meanwhile, the train of thought leading from the axioms to
    the empirical facts or verifiable consequences gets steadily longer
    and more subtle. The theoretical scientist is compelled in an
    increasing degree to be guided by purely mathematical, formal
    considerations in his search for a theory, because the physical
    experience of the experimenter cannot lead him up to the regions of
    highest abstraction. . . . The theorist who undertakes such a labor
    should not be caped at as "fanciful"; on the contrary, he should be
    granted the right to give free reign to his fancy, for *there is no
    other way to the goal*. (A. Einstein, see the book Ideas and
    Opinions, by A.  Einstein, p.282)

I strongly believe that in the study of intelligence we are faced from
the very beginning with even more "dramatic" situation: if "the train of
thought leading from the axioms to the empirical facts" for the *first*
physical theories was relatively short (and that is why a more direct,
"hands on" approach was possible), the theory of intelligence, or
intelligent (biological) information processing, has not and *cannot*
originate with the theories similar in the mathematical structure to
the first physical theories, simply because the basic elements of
"information" and "intelligence" are much more abstract and are not
visible to the naked eye.  It is intersting to note that many of the
leading physicists would probably agree with this statement.  (For one
of the most resent opinions see The Emperor's New Mind, by R.Penrose)

Besides, any specific biological entity on any "planet" represents an
outcome of a particular evolutionary implementation of the intelligence.
That is why the "computer and the oscilloscope" analogy is quite
appropriate.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that, as it is also becoming more and
more apparent in physics, the mathematical models of intelligence will
strongly lead the neurobiological and perceptual experiments and not
the other way around.

--Lev Goldfarb