From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!convex!constellation!uokmax!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Tue Jan 28 12:15:21 EST 1992
Article 2981 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!uunet!convex!constellation!uokmax!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Building Artificial Animals (was Re: Cargo Cult Science)
References: <16831@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <1992Jan22.041629.4631@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 04:16:29 GMT

>From article <16831@castle.ed.ac.uk>, by cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm):
> In article <1992Jan17.232633.12123@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
> 
>>  Ah but now what you have is something that looks like a mouse but
>>may not be a mouse.  Until you know what a mouse is in its truest and
>>purest ontological form, which would include access to its own 
>>epistemology however rudimentary, I'm afraid all you have is something
>>that resembles and isn't.
> 
> Unless one is a philosophical behaviourist. If one finds this rather
> unpopular position too implausible, then one might believe that is in in
> principle impossible for any mind to "know what a mouse is in its truest
> and purest ontological form" (the strongest form), or merely that it is
> practice impossible for a human mind to "know what a mouse is in its
> truest and purest ontological form" (the weakest form). If one holds
> either of these beliefs, or any of the versions of intermediate strength
> (and it so happens that any of them are true :-) then your comment is
> vacuous.
> 

Ah, but you forgot what I was replying to.  You, as I recall, wanted
to make a mouse from a machine.  Do behaviourists really believe that
biology and physiology have nothing to do with the ontological status of a 
mouse?   Furthermore, do they really believe that creatures are in principle
digital?  The ontology of a mouse must include its biology in a real way
not a mapped way.  To know it in pure ontology would require knowledge
of the way the mouse thinks.  And this is impossible.  And, yes, by
extension we have no way to know each other in pure ontology either.  
The problem of "priviledged access" has brought so many to their knees
that either they become behaviouristic or they ignore it.  But I don't
think that either are acceptable.  We must be willing to admit that we
can't know everything.  (*SHRIEK*)
  All that I ask AI of is that they admit that they can make things that
seem to be "intelligent" ect but not dare suggest that they have recreated
the human species or otherwise.

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



