Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group
From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 08/03/04
- Next message: Glen M. Sizemore: "Re: R&M's "memory illusions" and functional verbal response classes"
- Previous message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Next in thread: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Reply: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:05:40 +0100
In message <fa69ae35.0408021038.212f6e89@posting.google.com>, Eray
Ozkural exa <erayo@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
>Hello there,
>
>I started ai-philosophy group in an effort to bring together the
>stimulating, intellectual discussions of AI on comp.ai.philosophy in
>the old times, without the trolls, kooks and SPAM.
>
>Please consider joining this relatively new yahoo group.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy/
>
>We have been discussing some recent (by philosophical standards)
>articles on computationalism, some of which are collected in the book
>"Computationalism: New Directions", edited by Matthias Scheutz.
>
>I would be especially pleased to see views which endorse Sloman's view
>that Turing Machines are irrelevant to AI.
Really - just how much thought have you given to what he writes? How
much consideration have you given to what you were vociferously denying
not so long ago when it was suggested to you that you thought about
"intelligence" in terms of the "infinite tape" we call "the environment"
and how that selects and controls/programs behaviour?
Has anyone in your club had the opportunity to tell you why you might be
getting yourself hopelessly confused? Has anyone there made any attempt
to explain to you the nature and constraints of intensional opacity and
the difference between contingency shaped vs rule governed behaviour?
Where does private behaviour fit into that?
>
>Anybody who is seriously interested in philosophical and theoretical
>discussion about AI is most welcome. There is no moderation, but you
>must become a member to post [and promise to keep a high standard of
>discussion :), no flames, insults, etc.]
There, perhaps, is a clue (at least for others) as to why you are so
hopelessly confused!
>
>Best Regards,
>
>--
>Eray Ozkural
One might have thought that a smart engineer would look respectfully to
an empirical science of behaviour to see what it might teach them rather
than disregarding it a priori as stupid and misguided because it seemed
at odds with the folk psychological prejudices of "common sense".
But that's intensional opacity (or "Natural Stupidity") for you.
-- David Longley http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm
- Next message: Glen M. Sizemore: "Re: R&M's "memory illusions" and functional verbal response classes"
- Previous message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Next in thread: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Reply: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
