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 Wed Feb 26 12:53:19 EST 1992
Article 3900 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: <1992Feb20.224239.3394@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 92 22:42:39 GMT
References: <1992Feb19.155242.4895@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> <1992Feb19.205317.6095@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Feb20.163810.9324@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Lines: 59

In article <1992Feb20.163810.9324@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Wayne Peterson) writes:
>
>Mr Onstott says
>
>"  I think, however, that this sort of intelligence (non-human)
>, 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."
>
>The American Indians learned much about themselves by 
>watching the animals.  They learned from the beaver, the
>wolf, the rabbit.  The Indians felt they were a part
>of nature, not the Lords of nature as the European influenced
>White man, perhaps due to the Judio-Christian belief that
>animals are here to serve them. The Indians therefore
>looked to the way animals struggle, build, compete and
>see much intelligence to emulate. Being human they of
>course applied cleverness and ingenuity.  By studying
>animal intelligence the Indians learned much about 
>themselves. 
>
  Now you have laid your hand on the difference that I am talking about.
The indians learned from animals--we too are animals.  I can agree with
you insofar as we may find biologically interesting things out about
our intelligence via animals.  But a computer is NOT an animal and to
act as though it is makes an assumption about computers(ie that they
are the same).  This is the dangerous line that you are standing on,
among others, and this is why I am so troubled by the "go from comptuer
to human intelligence" approach.  I think we need to go from animal or
from human to human intelligence-that is the research program must
be founded in biological facts, not digital representation. 
>
>Sorry to offend you Mr Onstott, but one does not have to follow
>an argument if the assumptions are faulty which I sure mine
>are also.  Our problems are not with our arguments, but
>with our assumptions.
>
  I am not offended, quite the contrary you have vindicated me.  However,
this dispute is the quest of philosophers and, like Socrates once said,
"unless we be misanthropes" we should always pursure this argumentation.
I am trying to make a serious difference between human beings and computers;
the typical AI assumption is that computers are the same(universally).

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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


