From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!sis!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Jul 28 09:41:30 EDT 1992
Article 6463 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!sis!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Message-ID: <1992Jul16.153222.29080@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 16 Jul 92 15:32:22 GMT
References: <BrDw9t.8L1@brunel.ac.uk>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 36

In article <BrDw9t.8L1@brunel.ac.uk> Christopher.Carne@brunel.ac.uk (Christopher J Carne) writes:
>To me what is valuable about the Turing Test is that it does not
>ask (or give) absolute or essentialist definitions. Rather it is
>sensitive to the dynamics of the social and relational ways in which
>humans construct concepts.

  Well stated.

>                      Indeed I feel that the lack of any definition
>we can all agree on is a healthy feature, reflecting the wide 
>diversity of viewpoints and methodologies in AI.

  Full agreement.

>                                                 Calls for
>absolute definitions seem to refelct a lack of philosophical
>enterprise and a privelaging of cognitivism as the only available
>grounding for work in AI, leading to a narrowing of vision and 
>delimit the type of work that can be done in AI. 

  Here I must disagree.  There are often calls for definitions on this
news group (and I admit some of them).  But most of the calls for
definition are made with no expectation of a satisfactory response.
The usual scenario is:

	A: Here is my proof that AI (or some aspect) is impossible.

	B: Define your terms.

  With this type of call for definition, B is really saying "You can't
prove anything is impossible until you can first define it.  Give us
your definition or we will treat your argument as hot air."

>Maybe we should have a comp.ai.sociology group as well :-) 

  Please, NO!  :-( .


