Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!cliffs.rs.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Sorities, Properties and The Extensional Stance
Message-ID: <jqbE2ozu9.3nn@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <850583038snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <850875571snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <jqbE2nox6.M7s@netcom.com> <851043757snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 03:18:09 GMT
Lines: 59
Sender: jqb@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:50199 comp.ai:42921

In article <851043757snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I already pointed out that the discussion doesn't end there, since I'm drawing
>> implications in either case, and it is in the drawing of implications, whether
>> by the intermediary or the final recipient, that the problems lie.  Since that
>> entails that the implications would be different, your conclusion that I don't
>> understand shows what a simpleton you are.  Your comments about Hubey alerted
>> me to look for this, and I'm now seeing that the problem is not merely your
>> arrogance, but the combination of that with the fact that you just don't
>> reason very deeply.
>
>Try  to  understand  -  it  is  not  the  implication   (material 
>conditional) that's the problem, but the failure of subtitutivity 
>of identicals salva veritate within intensional contexts such  as 
>the propositional attitudes. Reasoning, in its deductive form  is 
>NOT a psychological process. 

I understand that "drawing implications" is not material implication,
and that that equation is nefarious.

>I  suggest you stop trying to be an amateur "depth  psychologist" 
>too, you're no good at it. Look at the evidence and  stop  trying
>to understand the imagined "author".

>I'm  not interested in the sort of "exchange" you have to  offer. 
>What  I am looking for is further empirical research evidence.

To only be interested in what one hopes to find is nefarious.

>You  need  an education in this area Balter, as do  some  of  the 
>other members of your merry band of self appointed "critics".

Nefarious ad hominem.

>> Sounds like Hubey.  A argument is needed here, not just opinionated
>> handwaving.
>> 
>
>The arguments are in the references: Go and read them

A bibliography is not an argument.  But if it were, my refutation
is logical thought.  Go master it.

>My general conclusion is that *many* psychologists have in  gfact 
>misread what their discipline has all been about since the 1960s. 
>
>As an ampirical discipline, and in contrast to the technology  of 
>AI,  it  is  a catalogue of the failings  of  a  system  (*human* 
>information    processing)   optimised   for   fault    tolerance 
>biologically,  but minimally rational without the support of  the 
>edifice of scientific method.

When you come up with a method of information processing that handles the
entire range of issues that AI researchers are interested in, rather than your
narrow little band, be sure to publish it, and I'm sure it will be widely read
and appreciated.
-- 
<J Q B>

