Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!news.er.usgs.gov!jobone!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!129.33.24.22!fox.almaden.ibm.com!garlic.com!news.scruz.net!cruzio.com!news
From: ababian@cruzio.com (andrew babian)
Subject: Re: AI's Misconceptions & The Appropriate Role of Psychology?
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.6
Reply-To: ababian@cruzio.com
Sender: news@cruzio.com (System Administrator)
Organization: Cruzio Community Networking System, Santa Cruz, CA
Message-ID: <E594HD.AK5@cruzio.com>
References: <5ddq4u$h3n@ux.cs.niu.edu> <855284228snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <5decu8$ikk@ux.cs.niu.edu>
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: top125.cruzio.com
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:17:37 GMT
Lines: 9
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:51846 comp.ai:44054 sci.psychology.theory:6138

A thought that is a little of topic,  but relates to the question of
a system of purely existensional meaning vs intensional.  Any system
in which  meaning is not completely determined,  but is open to
mistakes and misinterpretation also has the ability to more easily create
new and better meanings by mistake in an evolutionary sense.  Pure
rationality is a closed system,  and it is much more desirably to have
an easily expandable system than a totally accurate one.  DNA that never
mutates is totally useless.  Developing separate systems of correcting 
mistakes  is not even a bad price over having a useless closed system.
