From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Mon May 25 14:06:39 EDT 1992
Article 5790 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <1992May20.223911.20396@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 20 May 92 22:39:11 GMT
References: <1992May18.120933.1683@oracorp.com> <6728@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 73

In article <6728@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <1992May18.120933.1683@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:

>>                   completely closed yourself off to any
>>progress in the area of the philosophy of AI. All of the promising
>>areas for investigation you have declared are uninteresting. You don't
>>want to know how humans understand, you only want to know whether
>>humans understand. You don't want to discuss the "other minds problem"
>>when it relates to humans, but you insist on the "other minds problem"
>>when it relates to computers. You refuse to consider "skeptical
>>possibilities" when they relate to humans, and insist on them when
>>they relate to computers. You refuse to make definitions, but it is
>>only through rigorous definitions that science (and understanding) can
>>make any progress.
>
>This is almost completely wrong, and insulting besides.

  Funny you should say that.  I thought Daryl had it almost completely
right!  If he is so completely wrong, you must be somehow misstating your
position in such a way that we reach this type of interpretation.

>For instance, I am interested in how humans understand.  I just don't
>think we have to know this before we can reach any conclusions about
>computers.

  One way of finding out how humans understand is to try to create the
equivalent ability in a computer.  You don't have to succeed in order
to learn.  Indeed the manner in which the attempt fails can be quite
revealing.  In my opinion failed attempts at creating AI have already
contributed considerably to our understanding of the nature of mind.

  When you insist on coming to premature conclusions about computers, you
effectively shut out this method of investigation.

>                               And what I object to about 
>definitions is demands that one side has to make them.
>Demands, moreover, from people who seem to be unwilling to
>offer definitions of their own.

  Yes, you are quite right.  When it comes to definitions, and demands
for definitions, the debate is decidely unfair.  On our side we have
very precise definitions of our terms (Turing Machines for example).
And your side uses an overly literal interpretation of these definitions
in its argument, and persistently refuses to acknowledge as significant
all of the things that computers demonstrably do.

  If you want a level playing field, either give us very precise definitions
of your terms so that we can tear your arguments apart with the same type
of over-literal interpretation, or stop using our definitions and start
basing your arguments on what computers have been demonstrated to be
capable of doing, and on where they have failed.

>BTW, when I've said in the past that it can matter "how it
>works" -- in computers and in humans -- all kinds of people
>have disagreed.  All that matters, they say, is the behavior.
>However it's accomplished, the behavior is enough.
>
>Are you now willing to agree with me that it can matter (though
>maybe we don't know for sure that it does matter) -- that it can
>matter how it works?  That we can't just look at behavior?

  I think you are reading far too much into the question of "how it
works."  For example, I have agreed in articles in the news group that
it does matter how it works.  But I have also said that I consider it
improbable beyond belief that you could ever get the right behavior
without it working in an appropriate way.  I think that puts me fairly
and squarely on both sides of this question.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940


