Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.ai.fuzzy    |    Fuzzy logic... all warm and fuzzy-like    |    1,275 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 650 of 1,275    |
|    Bill Silvert to Harris    |
|    Re: Comments on article "Terror: What's     |
|    03 Oct 06 07:35:34    |
      XPost: comp.ai, comp.ai.games, comp.ai.alife       From: silvert@gmail.com              I am always sceptical when someone writes that a system is too complex       to be understood/modelled/simulated. In the case of terrorism, although       there are many aspects to it that can lead to lots of detailed       analysis, some pretty straightforward patterns have long been evident       as reflected by the US intelligence report that has just been released.       One is that if you treat people disrespectfully (if you "diss" them in       the language of the ghetto) they respond with hostility and are likely       to fight back. That the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would       generate retribution was predicted by many and is now clear to all (or       almost all, excluding some senior politicians). Although some aspects       of the current "war on terror" are indeed complex and difficult to       comprehend, many of the basic underlying principles are clear and       easily understood and simulated.              The role of rational analysis in this case is not so much to tell us       something new - much of what we are likely to learn from AI is already       clear to scholars in the field - but to serve as an antidote to       policies based on wishful thinking. Unfortunately global policy is       currently based on a very simple model, that force and intimidation can       defeat any enemy. This model is wrong, and any alternate model that is       more realistic, even if it is very simple, is of potential value.              Harris wrote:              > Finally, human conflicts have been proven to be "complex" models in       > the mathematical term. In practice, this means that we can say little       > and do even less when it comes to "scaling" them down to a       > controllable system (in the input-output or state-space sense of       > Control Theory) or a dynamic bargaining system (in the non-zerosum,       > symmetric or asymmetric, gaming scheme in the sense of Utility       > Theory). Pretty 3D graphical simulations make things much more       > appealing, but they do not solve the real problems at hand.              [ comp.ai is moderated ... your article may take a while to appear. ]              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca