From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Wed Feb 26 12:53:38 EST 1992
Article 3927 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Aristotelian Ontology and AI
References: <1992Feb19.135322.12283@oracorp.com> <436@tdatirv.UUCP> <1992Feb21.143640.13134@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.213124.3895@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 21:31:24 GMT

In article <1992Feb21.143640.13134@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Wayne Peterson) writes:
>
>Mr Onstott, I heartily agree.  Computers are not people.  And
>programs are not thoughts.  I think you are right to pursue
>a biological approach to intelligence and I wish you well.
>Meanwhile we computer weanees need to just try to make
>our programs "smarter".  I've enjoyed this little debate
>with you.  Any man who quotes Socrates is a friend of mind.
  
  Ok, but I am not through yet.  The resason that I am not through is
tht I am advancing an Aristotelian ontology to explain this difference.
If you agree that computers (are) not people, this is in a particular
case, this is in an ontological case.  
  BUT, "Meanwhile we computer researchers need to just try to make our
programs 'smarter'" demarcates an 'is' as well.  Because, after all you
say that "This new program (is) smarter than the old one."  The original
question that I was asking, however not stated as such, was how can you
say this, how can you say the newer program (is) any smarter than the
older one?  I suggested an Aristotelian epistemology could account for this.
Because, the way in which you designate a program smart is by virtue of
its outputs, and by virtue of matching those outputs to some Universal
notion of intelligence.  And it is in this way that the research program can
make sense to me. 

  In this way there are operating here two types of "is."  An ontological
'is' and an epistemological 'is.'  I think that it is these ises(wow) that
get confused and conflated, even equivocated, frequently in CERTAIN 
research programs. 
>
>Someday I suspect there will be a synthesis of biology and
>computers, then we will have Data.
  This statement, is a product of that equivocation.  I don't think that
a synthesis of biology and computers is possible in the ontological sense.
The only synthesis possible would be an epistemological synthesis.  Let
me add, however, that the statement itself, or maybe your intentions, is
not an equivocation, but this statement can be read with an equivocation in
mind--that is the reader may equivocate the two types of 'is'  while reading
the statement.  That is why these types of statements are on a dangerous
line.
>
>Until then there is one pursuit worth our endeavers:
>"Know Thyself"
  I hope this endeaver is never stopped; but I fear its loosing hold.

Also to our comment above about my pursuing the biological approach:
I am a philosopher and not a research scientist, and do not intend
to pragmatically research AI.  Rather I am trying to ensure that AI
as a science remains as such.  The most scientific approach that AI
can take is a biological one where we go from the brain itself to 
a model of intelligence not the reverse (ie from a model of intelligence,
like Newell, to the brain.)

Finally, I have too enjoyed the debate--if there be any other problems,
such as a faute stupide, please let me know.  I am trying to work this out;
any criticism and input is enjoyed.

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


