Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!zombie.ncsc.mil!admii!ovation!rscanlon
From: rscanlon@pica.army.mil (Raymond D. Scanlon (CCB))
Subject: Re: Is Common Sense Explicit or Implicit?
Message-ID: <Cw8913.1M6@pica.army.mil>
Sender: usenet@pica.army.mil (USENET Special Account <usenet>)
Nntp-Posting-Host: grant
Organization: U.S Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 14:46:15 GMT
Lines: 36

Following the logical positivist tradition that statements describe
the world and can be written using symbolic logic, and that the
manipulative algebra of symbolic logic mirrors thought, I program
a computer as an inference engine and provide a set of rules.

Now, anything described directly by the rules is explicit
knowledge; anything deduced by the inference engine from the rules
is implicit. No common sense.

Following the neurophysiologists, knowledge resides in potentiated
synapses. A meaningful distinction may be made between genetic and
epigenetic knowledge. No common sense.

Following the neural netters, knowledge consists of weighted
connections. We can distinguish between the original weights and
the subsequent altered weights. No common sense.

Following the philosophers, anything can be said unless it involves
common sense.

Following the grammarians, we find that no two people mean exactly
the same thing when they use a word. This is NOT common sense but 
well describes this thread.

IMHO common sense is fun to talk about.

Ray




"What is thought except a movement that is not connected to a motor
neuron."
          Attributed to Walle Nauta


