Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!in2.uu.net!allegra!alice!rhh
From: rhh@research.att.com (Ron Hardin <9289-11216> 0112110)
Subject: Re: Does AI make philosophy obsolete?
Message-ID: <DFqyp6.9oD@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
References: <DFnG0u.1Gu@research.att.com> <44h0ga$dqh@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <DFp1px.IHE@research.att.com> <44jp46$9p8@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 01:55:54 GMT
Lines: 15
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:33772 comp.ai.philosophy:33248 sci.cognitive:9780 sci.psychology.theory:867

Chris Malcolm writes:
>>What you need now, it seems to me, is something to look at the
>>parsing you get, and see.
>
>For what? If you want to join in, please provide an argument to
>clarify and support your view.

Well, I could build a sun-seeing device, namely a magnifying glass
and a dead leaf.  It reduces the sun to a single bit, hole or no hole.

Hume's objection is, that's very nice, but you still need somebody
to look at the leaf.

Do children playing around make philosophy obsolete?
How does my machine differ from yours?
