Bennett and Hacker: Village Idiots or Philosophers?
David at longley.demon.co.uk
Tue Feb 17 07:15:11 EST 2004
In article <40311aad.36469116 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>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
A few questions: 1) have you looked into what discrimination learning is
all about and considered why I keep suggesting you look into it? 2) Have
you had a look at the Bennett and Hacker book or even a review of it? 3)
Do you see any similarities between your behaviour and that of Collins?
More information about the Neur-sci