Bennett and Hacker: Village Idiots or Philosophers?

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Mon Feb 16 14:34:31 EST 2004


On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:26:27 +0000, David Longley
<David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In article <4030e04a.30726781 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick 
><lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>>
>>Hi Eray -
>>
>>I certainly agree with what you note here. The problem with arguments,
>>rationales, etc. is that they are only about as useful as people's
>>comprehension of them. I think they are conclusive once understood but
>>Neil considers them totally or mostly word salad and you seem to be
>>somewhere in the middle.
>>
>>But I'll say one thing for the arguments, they're brief. So they admit
>>of evaluation in pretty straightforward terms. The only complicated
>>rationale is for S "differences between differences" resolution of
>>Russell's paradox and I'll be posting more on that in a few days.
>>
>>The unfortunate thing is they don't have any obvious direct relevance
>>to immediate issues in ai as the subject stands. The only significance
>>I can think of at the moment is that these ideas indicate that the
>>idea of actual sentience in ai is really something more than programs
>>and whatever one chooses to project as ai in turing terms.
>>
>>This latter is more on the order of robotics or in cognitive arenas
>>what I refer to as artificial neural turologies - ants. Which I find
>>nothing wrong with because it will probably prove more useful than
>>actual models of general cognition. However as Jim Bromer points out
>>in his Re: Reasoning and AI yesterday, it has been the case that
>>designers and programmers have thought they were more or less
>>discovering and writing equations of cognitive behavior and sentience
>>with their programs and that has definitely not proven to be the case.
>>So I consider that it would behoove ai architects to understand why so
>>they can reconsider whether they are aiming at actual cognition or
>>just robotics and the difference between the two.
>
>Go and find out about *discrimination learning*.
>
Yeah. David I've become havituated to your presence in terms of the
clinical definitions offered by Neil Rickert. You have nothing to add
to these conversations except claims of extraneous proof. So unless
you have something new to offer I suggest you find some other fields
to fertilize besides my own.

Regards - Lester




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list