From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!uokmax!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Tue Jan 28 12:15:19 EST 1992
Article 2979 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!uokmax!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Searle and the Curse of the Mediocre Philosophers
References: <FN6qeB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Message-ID: <1992Jan22.033429.3483@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 03:34:29 GMT

>From article <FN6qeB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>, by rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson):
> philosopher, but that he is a *MEDIOCRE* philosopher.  All
> philosophers use crude and shaky concepts as the basis for their
> reasoning -- they have to, otherwise they'd be scientists, not
> philosophers. 

If this were the case then Artificial Intelligence itself could not
be considered a part of computer science.  The main problem, as I see it,
is that no one has any idea what intelligence, mind, etc means at all.
They invent definitions of intelligence, make a computer match those definitions
and say, HEY I'VE GOT A MIND!!! This is, as any philosopher will tell you,
assuming what you are trying to prove and it is a fallacy.

> 
> My point is, what we call "philosophical" thought is not "logical"
> thought, it is "semantic" or phenomenological thought.  That's
> what we mean by calling "philosophical" thought "reflective."  As
> such it is inherently non-algorithmic (even when it is being used
> to create algorithms!), so it can lead either to brilliant
> insights or to garbage and there is not algorithmic or
> deterministic decision procedure to judge any sample of
> philosophical thought (any philosophical "text," since reflective
> or phenomenological thought is inherently and irredeemably
> _textual_, i.e., "semantic"), leading to the conclusion that
> philosophical thought must be judged pragmatically and
> heuristically by the conclusions and findings to which it lights
> the way.

So, first comes philosophy then comes sciences?  Ask the analytic 
philosophers about this one.  I think they would find you quite 
mistaken. 
> Can I "prove" that?  Not in general, but let us return to a
> "intellectual historical" consideration of this Chinese Room
> thread in this comp.ai.philosophy Newsgroup.
  
Sounds like you are a mediocre philosopher. 

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



