Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group
From: Eray Ozkural exa (erayo_at_bilkent.edu.tr)
Date: 08/03/04
- Next message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: death of the mind."
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Behavior as a Folk Psychology Metaphor"
- In reply to: David Longley: "Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Reply: David Longley: "Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 3 Aug 2004 13:20:54 -0700
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<6tjV0LIEG3DBFwSm@longley.demon.co.uk>...
> 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?
A lot. I am myself opposed to Sloman's conclusion in the cited
article. Hence the call for participation.
> 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?
I don't think that's a detailed explanation of any sort.
> 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!
I don't want to have trolls, kooks and spammers on the group (like you
or Bloxy's).
> 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.
It is not a matter of psychological prejudice, it is a matter of
objective knowledge. We don't start with the terms of common sense, we
try to construct theories of how something like common sense can
exist. Theory comes first. We build machines, because, guess what, we
are just machines.
You are a machine, too.
-- Eray
- Next message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: death of the mind."
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Behavior as a Folk Psychology Metaphor"
- In reply to: David Longley: "Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Reply: David Longley: "Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|