Your observation is correct for the AI field, where researchers turn to dismiss philosophy as hot air. A major reason, to me, is that the "philosophy of AI" discussions in history has been providing much more distraction than contribution to AI research.
The AGI circle, as Ben said, is more philosophy-friendly. However there are still many major philosophical issues ignored, while some wrong philosophical beliefs accepted as "self-evident". Personally. I've learned a lot about AI from philosophy, and I believe most major AI mistakes are philosophical, not merely technical. For example of my philosophical writings, see http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.AI_Misconceptions.pdf and http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/gti-summary (on going). However, I'd rather not get involved in philosophical discussions not "grounded" in technical considerations. Pei On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, this brings up something that I'd like to pose to the list as a whole. I > realize this will be a somewhat antagonistic question - my intent here is not > to offend (or to single anyone out), especially since I could be wrong. > > But my impression is that with some exceptions, AI researchers in general > don't want to touch philosophy. And that astounds me, because of all the > possible domains of engineering, AI research has to be the domain of the most > philosophical consequence. Trying to build AI without doing philosophy, to > me, is like trying to build a rocketship without doing math. > > I believe there are a few reasons for why this is. One, philosophy is hard > and very often boring. Two, there is a bias against philosophers that don't > build things as being somehow irrelevant. And three, subjecting your own > ideas to the philosophical scrutiny of others is threatening. There's a kind > of honor in testing your ideas by building it, so one can save some face in > the event of failure (it was an unsuccessful experiment). But a philosophical > rejection that demonstrates through careful logic the infeasibility of your > design before you even build it - well, that just makes you feel stupid. > > I invite those of you who feel like this is unfair to correct my perceptions. > > Terren > > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, John G. Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Searle's Chinese Room argument is one of those >> things that makes me >> > wonder if I'm living in the same (real or virtual) >> reality as everyone >> > else. Everyone seems to take it very seriously, but to >> me, it seems like >> > a transparently meaningless argument. >> > >> >> I think that the Chinese Room argument is an AI >> philosophical anachronistic >> meme that is embedded in the AI community and promulgated >> by monotonous >> drone-like repetitivity. Whenever I hear it I'm like >> let me go read up on >> that for the n'th time and after reading I'm like >> WTF are they talking >> about!?!? Is that one the grand philosophical hang-ups in >> AI thinking? >> >> I wish I had a mega-meme expulsion cannon and could expunge >> that mental knot >> of twisted AI arterialsclerosis. >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> agi >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >> Modify Your Subscription: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
