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!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!allegra!alice!rhh
From: rhh@research.att.com (Ron Hardin <9289-11216> 0112110)
Subject: Re: Does AI make philosophy obsolete?
Message-ID: <DFvHFv.1Hp@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> <DFqyp6.9oD@research.att.com> <JMC.95Oct1094721@Steam.stanford.edu> <DFsBDo.1x9@research.att.com> <JMC.95Oct1163339@Steam.stanford.edu> <DFstCz.MJ3@research.att.com> <JMC.95Oct1195337@Steam.stanford.edu> <DFtMqy.9tD@research.att.com> <JMC.95Oct2092236@Steam.stanford.edu> <DFu7D2.EFz@research.att.com> <JMC.95Oct2190847@Steam.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 12:31:07 GMT
Lines: 19
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:33821 comp.ai.philosophy:33300 sci.cognitive:9834 sci.psychology.theory:913

>Go through the elaborations that I posted, and you will find that they
>are  not just the addition of constraints.  In fact I think that none
>of them are.

In fact I believe they are; for instance right off, the
big missionary vs the little cannibal is just the addition of
a line that prevents a transition to a state with that conjunction.
Say C0 and M0.

To add oars, you have to add something to more statements at the
formal verification level, but it is not hard to imagine a preprocessor
where that is not true.

It does not do what you want, to use previous solutions, but then
the problem doesn't seem to want it, if you have BDDs in mind.

It seems AI is attackable from two sides, a literary one
and a mechanical one.  The literary one demonstrates what
AI cannot imagine, and the mechanical one makes AI unimaginable.
