Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.psc.edu!hudson.lm.com!hookup!newshost.marcam.com!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!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: <DEHx50.44I@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
References: <41gnj4$sl9@bigblue.oit.unc.edu> <41ndlq$fmi@venus.mcs.com> <41uvkr$gt5@Venus.mcs.com> <DEE70D.Kts@festival.ed.ac.uk> <draperjv.68.000E67F3@ornl.gov> <JMC.95Sep5155618@Steam.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 18:10:12 GMT
Lines: 16
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:33166 sci.cognitive:9433 sci.psychology.theory:560

John McCarthy writes:
>     Artificial intelligence and philosophy have more in common
>     than a science usually has with the philosophy of that
>     science.  This is because human level artificial
>     intelligence requires equipping a computer program with some
>     philosophical attitudes, especially epistemological.
>
>     The program must have built into it a concept of what
>     knowledge is and how it is obtained.

There must be Artificial Intelligence attitudes then!
(Taking advantage of the commonality.)

You could equip programs with that instead!

(I claim _philosophical_ calls on thinking that AI necessarily cannot imagine)
