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!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Thu Feb 20 15:22:16 EST 1992
Article 3881 of comp.ai.philosophy:
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!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.tech.philosophy,talk.misc.philosophy
Subject: Re: Aristotelian Ontology and AI
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.205317.6095@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 19 Feb 92 20:53:17 GMT
References: <1992Feb18.195936.14369@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Feb19.155242.4895@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Lines: 52

In article <1992Feb19.155242.4895@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Wayne Peterson) writes:
>Sorry Mr Onstott, but you too seem to equate intelligence with
>human intelligence.  Some "strong AI" our concerned with reproducing
>human intelligence, but pragmatically this is unimportant.  AI is
>a set of programs to solve problem requiring intelligence for
>humans, this does not imply the need for human intelligence in
>the programs.  We already have humans, what we need are smart machines.
>
>Wayne Peterson

  Yes, the above view is the only scientifically correct view; that
we are forming something intelligent that isn't necessarily human intelligence.
I think my understanding of this has been expressed in nearly all of
my postings.

  I think, however, that this sort of intelligence, the intelligence
that you seek, is uninteresting as it does not tell us anything about
human intelligence and the human mind.  If you go to far with your
view above, you will construct something deemed "intelligent" that
doesn't resemble intelligence at all.  And this is a dangerous edge
to stand on.


  My article on Aristotle was directed at a PARTICULAR type of research
program which states that reproduction of "intelligence" is "human intelligence"
sort of like a program on any number of machines is the same program.  
This sort of argumentation, although you yourself may not adhere to it,
is real and does exist.

  I need no apologies from you as you adhere to a more scientifically
correct view of intelligence.  In short, my article was not written
or directed at your understanding of intelligence as is evidenced by:
"I am going to present a particular view of Artificial
Intelligence, and this is not taken to be THE view of AI, and
analyze it under the precepts of an Aristotelian ontology."

  Please pay more attention to my argumentation than just blindly responding.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu


"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."

                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


