From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!nuscc!maclane!smoliar Tue Feb 11 15:25:27 EST 1992
Article 3557 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3557 sci.philosophy.tech:2081
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!nuscc!maclane!smoliar
>From: smoliar@iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Robotic Follies (was re: Strong AI and Panpsy
Keywords: panpsychism
Message-ID: <1992Feb6.221125.26525@nuscc.nus.sg>
Date: 6 Feb 92 22:11:25 GMT
References: <1992Feb4.191756.8478@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Feb5.021730.29817@nuscc.nus.sg> <1992Feb5.090941.8498@husc3.harvard.edu>
Sender: usenet@nuscc.nus.sg
Reply-To: smoliar@iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar)
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore
Lines: 64
Originator: smoliar@maclane

In article <1992Feb5.090941.8498@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu
(Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>  Like
>I said elsewhere, my exposition of Churchian semantics (an example of a
>formal belief theory, the very possibility of which has been denounced by
>Minsky on a priori grounds) can be found in the following articles:
>
>	<1991Nov10.004631.5292@husc3.harvard.edu>  
>	<1991Nov22.154821.5774@husc3.harvard.edu>  
>	<1991Nov27.115032.5957@husc3.harvard.edu>
>	<1991Dec20.134023.6825@husc3.harvard.edu>
>	<1991Dec21.015234.6837@husc3.harvard.edu>    
>
>Again, a summary will be posted on request.
>
I accept your invitation;  but, just to make sure we agree upon the ground
rules (assuming you are willing to do so), let me lay out the basis for the
current argument.  Specifically, we are disputing the following words posted
by Minsky in article <21879@life.ai.mit.edu>:

>  What
>I've said about "belief" in a philosophical context was that the idea
>that "Jack believes X" is not a reasonable thing to discuss formally.
>(For example, in the context of "believes" vs. "knows".) Simply
>because the human mind is not a simple data-base plus processor, or
>axiom-set plus -rule(s) of inference.  Instead, the situation normally
>is much more complex, one part of your mind (one ensemble of agencies)
>maintaining one assumption, justification, protected-goal, etc., while
>other parts are denying , rejecting, suppressing, opposing, etc.
>corresponding positions.  Thus you can love/dislike, etc.  There isn't
>simply a person/homunculus inside your head, but a big
>self-conflicting organization.

I THINK what is really at stake here is Minsky's claim about whether or not the
mind can be reduced to a data base enhanced with processing (which may be taken
as logically equivalent to an axiom set enhanced by rules of inference).  Thus,
the part of your exposition which most interests me concerns whether you are
refuting this claim or demonstrating that it is irrelevant to whether or not
be can discuss belief formally.  I have seen several formal systems which
purport to provide an adequate handle for belief.  (I found Robert Moore's
thesis, "Reasoning About Knowledge and Action," an excellent introduction
to the state of this "art.")  What I have NOT seen is a cogent argument which
demonstrates that such systems are effective in the more complex situations
which Minsky has outlined above.  I hope you can provide such an argument,
because I doubt that you can provide one that our usage of the word "belief"
precludes all those complex situations.
>
>SS:
>>  Your own rhetoric, on the other hand,
>>is no longer refreshing but has become tedious, "pare un libro
>>stampato"--just
>>like the raging of that poor nun seduced and abandoned by Don Giovanni.
>
>Poor nun indeed... it's nice to know that your taste for dissonance in
>music has permitted you to appreciate Mozart and da Ponte -- about as much
>as you appreciate Kant and company.
>
I confess that I have to struggle with my Kant a bit more than with my Mozart,
but I certainly regard both of them as worth the effort.
-- 
Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511
Internet:  smoliar@iss.nus.sg


