Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!freenet.columbus.oh.us!pacific.mps.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: <DFvFvv.K3@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
References: <DFp1px.IHE@research.att.com> <44jp46$9p8@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <DFqyp6.9oD@research.att.com> <44pmlt$5pr@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 11:57:31 GMT
Lines: 12
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:33820 comp.ai.philosophy:33299 sci.cognitive:9831 sci.psychology.theory:911

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

>You are quite right, that is why your device is not a vision system,
>and why the other systems previously described, such as robots which
>tracked roads visually, are.

The hole in the leaf represents any mechanical result, does it not?

Coleridge has an excellent discussion of AI in Biographia Literaria,
chapter 5 and following for a few chapters, that continues this line.
