> > 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.
As was pointed out the problem seems to stem from the comp-sci computationalist approach. Most people seem to take a suspicious view of philosophy. I remember a (regular IT) coworker laughing at my copy of "Being and Nothingness." Think about it though: few concepts could be more essential to understanding reality than the idea that something IS or IS-NOT. How many AI systems make a distinction even that simple? Yes, you could argue that any binary system does, via a '1' or '0', but where is it represented in a given system that something "IS"? The answer is nowhere, in general, because it is assumed. People are in such a hurry to deliver a product, no consideration is given to just representing explicitly that something IS. Mike > > 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
