Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai.neural-nets
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!dsinc!spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Why AI will eventually work
Message-ID: <jqbE2CDsv.2q0@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <329C4585.74A8E2E0@geocities.com> <32B03B1B.5703@parkcity.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 07:50:55 GMT
Lines: 19
Sender: jqb@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:42752 comp.ai.philosophy:49891 comp.ai.neural-nets:35152

In article <32B03B1B.5703@parkcity.com>,
Richard Keene  <rkeene@parkcity.com> wrote:
>2.) Stop being so philisophical.  Lets do engineering, not 
>philosophy.  The current tidal wave of discussions about 
>conciousness and such simply highlight the lack of any real 
>progress.  Much like religious debates of 'how many angles can 
>dance on the head of a pin.'  I think it is not so important to 
>define intelligence in a philosophical sense in order to arrive 
>at ai.  People recognize intelligence in creatures, yet can't 
>define it.

There are places for philosophers, and places for engineers.  I'm reading this
in comp.ai.philosphy, where a plea to not do philosophy seems out of place.
But there are constructive sorts of philosophy, like what Aaron Sloman does,
and notably he is no friend of quibbles about "consciousness".

-- 
<J Q B>

