From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Tue Mar 24 09:57:25 EST 1992
Article 4606 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: SEMANTICS AND COGNITIVE CONTENT
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <6428@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Mar18.230538.9494@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.153058.29284@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 15:30:58 GMT

In article <1992Mar18.230538.9494@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <6428@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>In my opinion, it's the "anti-AI", "pro-CR", side that has the more
>>interesting things to say.  I want to know whether and how machines
>>can be made intelligent, and these people are saying what the
>>obstacles are.
>
>  Perhaps this exemplifies the miscommunication that is occuring.  But from
>my perspective, it looks as if the pro-CR side is not saying what the
>obstacles are - instead, they are saying that the whole project is doomed
>to failure and they have proof. 

Gee, you guys can't take a little skirmishing without thinking all out
war is on. You'd think we'd said "Only God can know" or something.
Only the current project is doomed. Computers, as we now know them,
don't have what it takes. This doesn't mean that all theorizing about
cognition -- and a bunch of other psychological stuff as well that often
gets lost in the fray -- must come to a grinding halt. Content is important.
So important that those committed to computers feel they have to claim they
have it in the face of what, to some of us, seems clear evidence to the 
contrary. The rest of us are still committed to a theory of cognition, but
one that does more justice to content that current computational theories
seem capable. Let's (read and) talk about just what content is, and how
it might be theoretically realized. People who really believe that abstract
symbol manipulation results in real content will not be interested in this
project (and I would thank them to move on to the next more interesting
posting). Those of us who think content is still a problem, and an 
important one at that, I ask to offer their comments.
-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


