From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!access.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!emory!gwinnett! Tue Jan 28 12:16:35 EST 1992
Article 3061 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!access.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!emory!gwinnett!
depsych!rc
>From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle and the Curse of the Mediocre Philosophers
Message-ID: <1Za1eB3w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 92 14:19:59 GMT
References: <1992Jan22.033429.3483@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Lines: 94

onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:

> From article <FN6qeB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>, by rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM 
> > 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 definiti
> 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.

Everybody knows that AI has a lot of hype in it.  If you want to
call it "philosophical" that's just the rhetorical use of the term
"philosophical" in a pejorative sense.  My feeling is that trying
to emulate the workings of the mind is interesting in its own
right and will generate interesting insights along the way.

Btw, from a "theological" point of view, if we did find that the
mind worked according to principles so irrational that they
couldn't be simulated, I think this would be a stronger argument
for blind evolution than for the existence of a soul.  Almost
every time you look at a scientific viewpoint that the scientist
himself may have developed to "prove" some theological or
ideological point of view, you find that just looking at it a
different way provides proof for the side he was trying to refute
in the first place!  Try the exercise with evolution, vitalism,
behaviorism, etc.

> > 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.

No.  They might disagree, but they would not brand my view the
"mistaken" one lightly.  Just about every book I read which has a
discussion of what philosophy "is," even within the logical
analysis tradition, points out that there is a dichotomy between
the "traditional" view (i.e., the Nineteenth Century view) of
philosophy as not a special science but a pre-science or
proto-science, or perhaps more accurately an arena or spawning
ground for new sciences, and the altogether new view that
philosophy has a subject matter of its "own," namely logic and
linguistic clarification.  That is, the logical analysts know they
are suggesting something new and different and most of them aren't
really sure what it all means.
 
> > 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. 

I don't even claim that distinction.  I was trying to use the term
"mediocre" in a seriously descriptive sense.  There has been a
long tradition of study and speculation revolving around the
relation of "good" ideas to "excellent" ideas.  It's that
tradition I had in mind.  I got several E-mail posts implying
that I had "flamed" Prof. Searle (who is _not_ a poster in this
Newsgroup and who _is_ a public figure).  I replied that if a
fight fan should call someone like Buster Douglas a "bum" he is
not thereby suggesting, and is not understood by other fight fans
to be suggesting, that he himself could lick Mr. Douglas.  The
term "bum" among fight fans, in spite of its pejorative sound,
really has a quite specific meaning, namely that the person so
referred to is undistinguished in his pugilistic skills.  It says
nothing about his character or essential personhood.  Perhaps I am
wrong about Prof. Searle and history will recognize him as a
significant figure in 20th Century thought.  If so, then the
Chinese Room will probably be mentioned in the same spirit as
Nietzsche's notion of the Eternal Return, namely a technically
mediocre idea emanating from a great mind.

--
Richard Carlson        |    rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Midtown Medical Center |    {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
Atlanta, Georgia       |
(404) 881-6877         |


