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 12:54:06 EST 1992
Article 3972 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
Subject: Re: Aristotelian Ontology and AI
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.042453.11597@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 92 04:24:53 GMT
References: <1992Feb21.143640.13134@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> <1992Feb21.213124.3895@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Feb22.191412.4446@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Lines: 77

In article <1992Feb22.191412.4446@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Wayne Peterson) writes:
>
>
>Charles Onstott III = CO3
>Wayne Peterson = WP
>
>CO3:
>  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. 
>>
>WP:
>I have another is for you it is the existential is.  This is the most 
>dangerous is of them all.  It can negate both the ontological and the
>epistemological is with an is not.  It is this is that makes truth
>so elusive because what is may only exist relative to what is
>not.
>
>I dreamt that my brother was a vampire.  I stood over his body
>lying in a coffin with a mallet and stake.  I debated "Should I
>kill my own brother, or let a vampire run loose (exercising
>of course my free will)." I choose the existential is not and
>woke up. There is no vampire and there is no decision to make.
>
>Now in the existential is not, all ontological and epistemological
>ises are possible for in the end they are not.
  Ok, so you are definantly not advancing a metaphysical is not.  This
is a profound statment.  For those of you who read my reply to
the article on Determinism Precludes Truth, this is the very sort of thing
that I am talking about.
>So yes there can be other shadows on the wall that seem intelligent
>just like our shadow, yet not be intelligent, but how intelligent
>are we to stay in the cave content to follow the shadow, or debate
>about the existance of the shadows for the existential is not (chaos)
>shall make what is, not.
Interesting, can you say more?

>
>CO3:
>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.)
>
>WP:
>I am glad that you know who you are.  I dont have the slightest idea
>who I am.  I once thought that I was a philosopher, the government
>then decided that I was a soldier.  Then first chance I decided that
>I was a teacher (who will pay a philosopher?).  Students were
>eventually replaced by computers.  It is easier to teach a computer
>than a student. Computers do what they are told--eventually.  But these 
>are only my ontological and epistemological identities which shall
>soon be undone by my existential what is not.
  Ah, but I am young, who knows who the hell I am.  For now, I feel
somewhat like a philosopher--what the rest of life holds, who knows.

>
>"What good is science, It does not even know what happens to you
>when you die."   Bob Prokup  Science Student

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


