Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 8 Issue 061
AIList Digest Monday, 22 Aug 1988 Volume 8 : Issue 61
Philosophy:
Sensory/Abstract Reasoning and Parallel Thinking
Re: Can we human beings think two different things in parallel?
Religion:
science, lawfulness, a (the?) god
The Godless assumption
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu 18 Aug 88 10:15:08-PDT
From: George Cole <C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Sensory/Abstract Reasoning and Parallel Thinking
Two points I'd like to respond on: Sensory/Abstract Reasoning and Parallel
Thinking.
Driving a car (or martial arts) at an advanced level clearly involves
"compiled" kinesthetic behavior coupled with sensory processing (in plain terms,
eye-muscle coordination), plus advanced symbolic reasoning coupled with the
same sensory processing (predicted paths of other vehicles from both physics
and "rules of the road" and estimated intent. In commuter driving the abstract
reasoning can reach quite high levels where the entire traffic pattern is
perceived -- how many experienced commuters can spot the tourist who is
"interfering" with the norm? The point I want to emphasize is that the symbolic
reasoning is at a very high level, going beyond "stop at red light" rules to
"the intent of the red car is to reach the exit requiring the blue truck to slow
requiring that lane to slow with a high probability of some jackass swerving one
lane over requiring that lane to react -- so I'm moving over to the fast lane to
ease the potential congestion".
This is one type of parallel cogitation -- but it can be argued that it
actually is a learned and advanced compilation of processing into multi-level
coordinated behavior, i.e. there really is only one reasoning process that
simply has manifold layers capable of distinct, need-specific interpretation.
True parallel cogitation either is unconscious or reflective: when you are aware
of your reasoning as it progresses, isn't that parallel cogitation? And how many
times have people solved problems in the background as they coped with their
daily rush of events?
My two-cents suggestion is that people engage in a great deal of
parallel processing, using their innate "multiprocessor" capacity. Since it is
harder to devise integrated algorithms than serial ones, most of the parallel
processing will be of different "types" of reasoning (logical and emotional,
physical and logical, visual and auditory, imitative vocal and creative
mathematical, etc.). When integrated parallel processing has had a positive
survival value (i.e. sensory-muscular coordination) we should find that behavior
demonstrated.
George S. Cole, Esq.
C.Cole@macbeth.stanford.edu
------------------------------
Date: 21 Aug 88 03:05:58 GMT
From: quintus!ok@Sun.COM (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Reply-to: quintus!ok@Sun.COM (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Subject: Re: Can we human beings think two different things in
parallel?
In a previous article, Youngwhan Lee writes:
>Date: Sun, 14 Aug 88 16:54 EDT
>From: Youngwhan Lee <ywlee@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
>To: ailist-request@stripe.sri.com
>Subject: Can we human beings think two different things in parallel?
>
>Can we human being think two different things in parallel? Does anyone know
>this? One of my friends said that there should be no problem in doing that. He
>said we trained to think linear, but considering the structure of brains only
>we must be able to think things in parallel if we can train ourselves to do
>that. Is he correct?
I don't think much of the argument, and suspect that the answer depends on
what you mean by "thinking". For example, while reading your message and
planning my reply, I was extemporising on a soprano recorder (not at all
well, I hasten to add). Were both of those activities "thinking"? We can
attend to 2..4 musical parts at once without switching between them, keeping
straight which sounds belong to what part and what patterns are being formed.
But does that count as "thinking"? And does "different" mean "unrelated"
(perhaps processing information from different senses) or "conflicting"
(perhaps trying to generate speech for two different topics).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 12:57 O
From: <YLIKOSKI%FINFUN.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Subject: science, lawfulness, a (the?) god
Distribution-File:
AILIST@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
In AIList Digest V8 #54, T. Michael O'Leary <HI.OLeary@MCC.COM>
presents the following quotation (without mentioning who originally
wrote it):
> >Science, though not scientists (unfortunately), rejects the
> >validity of religion: it requires that reality is in some sense
> >utterly lawful, and that the unlawful, i.e. god, has no place.
I would say that a God needs not be unlawful. A counterexample of
some kind could be a line by Einstein: I think he said that the
regularity of the structure of the universe reflects an intellect. (I
cannot remember the exact form of the quotation, but I think the idea
was this.)
--- Andy
------------------------------
Date: Thu Aug 18 10:32:01 EDT 1988
From: sas@BBN.COM
Subject: The Godless assumption
FYI, for those who had trouble with Mike Dante's comment:
I don't see that as any excuse for being a Luddite in either field.
a Luddite is one who smashes machines.
An occaisional Luddite,
Seth
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
