Re: Artificial Intelligence FWIW

From: AlphaOmega2004 (OmegaZero2003_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/14/04 

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:42:18 -0700

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JSfp7EGWWrbBFwWg@longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <1097773474.hQDGrzyiInUoaB9ePauleA@teranews>, AlphaOmega2004
> <OmegaZero2003@yahoo.com> writes
> >
> >"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:bT89LIEanqbBFwlg@longley.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <416e9382.89344941@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
> >> <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >> >
> >> > Artificial Intelligence FWIW
> >> > ----------
> >> >
> >> >Let's just cut out the middleman here and figure out what the term
> >> >artificial intelligence means or at least how to address the subject
> >> >definitive terms. Now, analogous to the case of free will and abstract
> >> >information and knowledge, we find that artificial intelligence is a
> >> >subspecies of intelligence. So we don't really need to concern
> >> >ourselves with the term artificial until we understand what the term
> >> >intelligence means.
> >> >
> >> >Anyone can do the artifice. Behaviorists have their hammers and
> >> >tongs, a bit primitive perhaps but nonetheless effective for training
> >> >animals. Cognitive scientists have their electrodes, MRI's, and drug
> >> >implants. And ai'er's have their computer models and simulations. So
> >> >artifices aren't really the issue. In fact in the half century or so
> >> >since Turing's formative work and subsequent development of the
> >> >computer and software, the issue of an artifice by means of which to
> >> >implement artificial intelligence has disappeared in any event.
> >> >
> >> >So, if the problem in artificial intelligence or ai is not one of the
> >> >artifice, it has to be one of the intelligence. In other words, the
> >> >whole problem of artificial intelligence seems to boil down to a
> >> >question no one except science fiction writers appear particularly
> >> >anxious to address. And that is what the hell is intelligence?
> >> >
> >> >Regards - Lester
> >>
> >> "Intelligence" as used by most people, is just an intensional term
which
> >> means whatever they want it to mean so long as nobody asks what they
> >> mean. That's why it's scientifically and technologically useless except
> >> for bewitching the naive and unwary. The way that you, and others in
awe
> >> of so-called computer and cognitive "science" ask the questions you do,
> >> and "discuss" the issues that you do, simply shows the extent to which
> >> you're all under the spell of those who both create and exploit our
> >> natural, folk psychological (mentalistic) vernacular for their own,
> >> usually egregious self-interest.
> >
> >Youo are so caught up in this diatribe against other scientists and what
> >they use as terminology you cannot stand aside and see it for what it is.
>
> No, 1) I don't consider them scientists 2)

So, there it is folks! Kandel and Gazza*** and countless other real
scientists are *not* scientists according to Longley!

WHEW!!

> I don't see any empirical
> advances from what they do and 3) they generally show they don't
> understand the science of behaviour (or anything else). This is pretty
> much my reason for 1).
>
> You just don't *like* what I am telling you. Tough.
>
> >
> >> --
> >> David Longley
> >> http://www.longley.demon.co.uk
> >
> >
>
> --
> David Longley

Quantcast