Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!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: <DFstCz.MJ3@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>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 01:55:47 GMT
Lines: 22
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:33779 comp.ai.philosophy:33259 sci.cognitive:9799 sci.psychology.theory:880

John McCarthy writes:
>BDDs constitute an AI methodology supposing that the input to a
>process amounts to the values of some number (up to thousands) of
>Boolean variables and the output is a decision, i.e. selection one of
>a number of predetermined alternatives.
>
>If BDDs were an adequate methodology for human-level intelligence or
>even for expressing what needs to be known to drive a car safely, then
>maybe AI would be done, and all we would have to do is
>
>(1) crank up the hardware
>
>(2) investigate whether BDDs correspond to human and animal decisions.
>
>I don't believe that BDDs are even on the right track, but my reaction
>is somewhat Rossinian.

The BDD is equivalent to the logical sentences you build it with,
so I don't see what's wrong about it.  It's exactly as predetermined.

Its poetics are hopelessly mechanical though, which may be what you are noticing,
and perhaps is what the argument comes to.
