From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Tue Apr  7 23:22:22 EDT 1992
Article 4729 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Language as Technology: A Phenomenological Study
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.003003.20515@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 92 00:30:03 GMT
References: <1992Mar25.080515.20086@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar25.185007.21788@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Lines: 196

In article <1992Mar25.185007.21788@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
>In article <1992Mar25.080515.20086@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>    When one reads Derek Bickerton's _Language and Species_, 
>>one finds an unsurprising definition of intelligence: 
>>  
>>    1.) Language evolved.  
>>...
>>    5.) The book then tries to show that humans are more 
>>    intelligent than other creatures by virtue of their 
>>    language(in a top-down analysis). Thus, we have the first 
>>...
>>    It is noteworthy at this point to state that the AI 
>>community generally accepts language as the determinant for 
>>intelligence.  Further, understanding by a machine can be arrived
>>at by means of giving a machine a language.(Even one capable of 
>>dealing with something as esoteric and remedial as a blocks 
>>world)  By 'language,' I mean not only the general languages of 
>>English or French, but the logical language upon which the entire
>>computer project relies. 
>
>  Language is very important.  But it is far from the whole story.
  It sure is the whole story.  I am, at this time, disregarding connectionist
methods.  Thea of language here ecompases those rules or general algorhytms,
etc,etc employed by conventional AI approaches.  Even these so-called
heuristical methods can not get beyond the language problem.


>
>  Chimpanzees are highly intelligent animals, although they do not have
>anything we would consider language.  On the other hand, songbirds seem
>substantially less intelligent, but they do possess some kind of language.
>Machine languages have been around for a while, and if that were all that
>were needed to make a machine intelligent we would not have these
>interminable discussions on the CR and related topics.
 You realize, of course, that by saying this you are already falling
into the trap I am avoiding. You can not make the statement about computers-
having-languages-and-not-necessarily-intelligent and at the same time 
maintain that birds-have-a-remedial-language and are thus less intelligent.
The problem I am getting away from is our necessity to understand language
as having anything to do with intelligence.  Particularly from the
standard top-down approach.


>  The most important aspect of human language is that it is a digital system.
>In effect language has digitized humans.  Compare consumer electronics of the
>'60s with comsumer electronics today.  The differences are enormous, and they
>are almost entirely a consequence of the transformation from analog electronics
>to digital electronics.  The difference between the chimpanzee and man is
>even more enormous, and it too is the result of digital technology, in this
>case the digital technology of human language.
 It hasn't digitized humans. It has, and here I am not sure that I fullly
commit, only digitizied their outputs.  Humans are quite capable of thinking
beyond the realms of language. You must let go of your hang-up on language.


> Songbird language appears to be an analog language, and therefore does not
>offer the benefits of digital human language.
 Ok, now you have lost me.  I see no reason why a songbird should have
an analog language and humans have a digital one by definition.  Please
elaborate.

>>    At this time, I would like to reiterate a study of the 
>>phenomenology of understanding and intelligence which was given 
>>at a lecture by Hubert Dreyfus at Oklahoma State University on 
>>March 24th, 1992. The following comes from a paper he delivered 
>>entitled, "From Socrates to Expert Computer Systems: The Limits 
>>of Calculative Rationality." 
>> 
>>The outline goes like this: 
>> 
>>Utilizing a standard phenomenological study like that of 
>>Heidegger we realize two things: 
>> 
>>1.) The notion of intelligence and understanding as 
>>consisting of propositions and reductive methodologies 
>>traces back to Socrates who consistently demanded the 
>>"method" of how an expert comes to his conclusion.  The 
>
> This view of intelligence has predominated in most AI work.  The evident
>failure thus far of AI to demonstrate human intelligence should be enough
>to force us to reconsider this view.
 Right, yet there are a lot who won't.    I suspect that with less and less
funding they will.

>
>>...
>>2.) Expertness comes from the following method of learning: 
>>...
>>    A.) Novice - Needs precise rules and definitions to 
>>    understand the new field.  Such as the fundamentals of 
>
>  Not necessarily true.  It tends to be true in many of the fields we
>consider most important, perhaps because our culture biases us toward this
>view.  But precise rules and definitions are probably much less important to
>an expert musician or an expert basketball player.
  Ok, this is a gradual learning scale.  It starts at A and moves to E.
An expert musician will have ALWAYS gone through A either by learning by
instruction or self-teaching.  S/he may forget this stuff later on, but
when s/he starts s/he will always go through this stage.

>
>>    mathematics.  Or in the case of driving, at which point 
>>    one uses the brake peddle and at which point one uses 

>>    B-D.) Experiments with the rules to determine new 
>>    outcomes.  Experiences an emotional component that 
>>    helps curve learning.  Mainly, the learner experiences 
>>    several cases.  As he advances from stage B to D he 
>>    begins to loose track of the specific rules given in 1 
>>    and begins to act more automatically.  Begins to 
>>    develop intuitive skills. 

>>    E.) Expert - Has an intuitive skills in his field.  
>>    Comes to conclusions without necessarily relying on 
>>    first principles.  Can not, without a painstaking  
>>    process which is never complete, provide a detail 
>>    account of "how" he came to the conclusion that he did. 
>
>  This underlines the importance of the underlying analog recognition system.
>Quite often when the expert does "provide a detailed account" his explanation
>is only an ex post facto rationalization of his conclusion.
TRUE.
>
>>Further, Dreyfus maintains that this DOES not DISPROVE that 
>>there is some ultrafast first-principles calculation going on.  
>>However, it DOES shift the burden of proof TO the argumentation 
>>that there ARE first-principle calculations going on.  In other 
>
>  It does no such thing.  All it does is suggest that people are looking
>in the wrong place for the wrong kind of first-principle calculation.
>The underlying analog recognition system still requires some form of
>calculation, but it is not the type of calculation that would be used
>in formal deductions.
Yes, but it is 'formal deductions' that we are talking about here.
Remember Socrates, this all rests on Socrates.

>
>>...
>>    If we take Dreyfus's argumentation above to be acceptable 
>>and if we think purely in terms of Heidegger, it appears that 
>>language itself becomes a technology.  From the technological 
>
>  Right.  But the crucial point is that it is not just a technology,
>but that it is digital technology.
>
>  It is not entirely certain whether the development of digital language
>(the digits are the phonemes) is certain.  It could well be that some
>cultures could have developed with purely analog languages.  But such
>cultures would be at such a great disadvantage they would be expected
>to die out once they come into competition with cultures with a digital
Ok, so this is why you think language is digital.  It isn't digital,
you are just applying a digital analysis to it.  Even an analog meter
can be thought of in digital terms.(ie, it is here NOT there).

>>    Accordingly, we realize that language is not the genesis of 
>>intelligence(thus, we can dismiss Bickerton's teleology towards a
>>language).  Further, we realize that language is itself a product
>>of intelligence.  Thus, leaving teleology aside and maintaining a
>
>  Sorry, but I disagree.  Language is a product of the ability of the
>analog recognition system to make sufficiently fine distinctions that
>it can recognize individual phonemes as digits.  The effective use of
>language is partly a product of the underlying analog intelligence.  But,
>being digital, language provides a technology which is essentially
>arbritarily extensible.
 First, language is not digital.  Second, it is, as you have agreed,
a technology.  Third, the intelligence comes before the language.
Bickerton maintains that language came before the intelligence.

>>Further, it is impossible to think of an AI project that is not 
>>language based with the possible exception of neural networking. 
>
>  It is not impossible at all.  However it does seem almost impossible
>to persuade anybody to take one seriously if following this approach.
  Ok, I would be interested to hear of other types of AI besides
connectionist approaches that wouldnot rely heavily on a language.

Also, it is good to see that there exists someone who more or less
agrees with this.
>  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu


"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


