From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utcsri!rutgers!mcnc!aurs01!throop Tue Jun 23 13:21:12 EDT 1992
Article 6310 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utcsri!rutgers!mcnc!aurs01!throop
>From: throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: 5-step program to AI
Message-ID: <60844@aurs01.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jun 92 17:13:50 GMT
References: <1992Jun16.213227.31307@mp.cs.niu.edu> <60835@aurs01.UUCP><493@tdat.teradata.COM>
Sender: news@aurs01.UUCP
Lines: 19

-> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
->> throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
->> I think the "richness" distance between "bugs" and frogs is
->>  smaller than that between frogs and dogs, [...]
-> Well, speaking as a biologist, I tend to see the differences between
-> frogs and insects as mostly one of engineering 'style' [...]
-> So, yes, they are roughly at the same level.

Good point.  In flattening out the tree-like relationship among
(say) insects, frogs, and dogs (and their various common parent
nodes), I come close to falling for the frequent "ladder of evolution"
fallacy.  But we're all sophisticated people here, so I'm sure
everybody knew what I meant by this simplification.

Well, *most* everybody, surely.

( Neil Rickert also made roughly the same point, which I agreed with. )

Wayne Throop       ...!mcnc!aurgate!throop


