From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!metro!usage!syacus!william Wed Dec 18 16:02:02 EST 1991
Article 2176 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!metro!usage!syacus!william
>From: william@syacus.acus.oz.au (William Mason)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: A Behaviorist Approach to AI Philosophy
Message-ID: <1991Dec17.000420.24457@syacus.acus.oz.au>
Date: 17 Dec 91 00:04:20 GMT
References: <YAMAUCHI.91Nov24030039@magenta.cs.rochester.edu> <5727@skye.ed.ac.uk> <YAMAUCHI.91Nov27203011@magenta.cs.rochester.edu> <5739@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1991Dec6.020944.4967@syacus.acus.oz.au> <5816@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
Lines: 102

This is ment as a comment on objectivity and the ability to do THINK-ing
experiments.  If this looks like a flame, clean your VDU.

jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) wrote:

>In article <1991Dec6.020944.4967@syacus.acus.oz.au> william@syacus.acus.oz.au (William Mason) writes:
>>find some circular arguments as represented below.
>>
>>>Again this might depend on exactly how it works.  Moreover,
>>>if the materials are sufficiently different, the behavior will
>>>also be different, though perhaps not in significant ways.
>>
>>In mathematics, there is a simple agreement that says we'll all argee
>>on the starting conditions before an exploration begins.  Statements
>>like the above seem to add nothing.  In my mind the above translates to
>>something like ...
>>
>>	OK, if I ignore/discount operative assumption #2, then I can prove
>> 	that all deductions based on it invalid.
>>
>>Of course!  Is that really the point, though ?
>>
>>I did not cite a source, because we are all guilty of this at one time
>>or another.  [ back to our regular programme ... ]

>You should have cited the source.  I find this kind of indirect
>attack much more annoying.

Ah, I didn't because, like many of us, I live in a glass house.

>I don't try to give a full argument in every message.  It takes too
>much time, and the same points keep coming up again and again.  Before

Perhaps there is a case for appendicies to recap complex arguments.

>dismissing one of my articles in this way, you might want to consider
>that it was posted in the context of a larger discussion in which I
>had already explained at greater length.

This is not a real-time medium.  To me the point is moot.  It appears my
earlier post is apparently irrelevant since ...

[preview]
>If you say "X is indistinguishable from human behaviour", this may be
>an assumption that cannot be realized.  (Consider "suppose a glass of
>water has behavior indistinguishable from human behavior".)
[end preview]

Then it is _no_longer_ 'indistinguishable from human behaviour', qed.
The *operative* assumption is more likely to be "... manufactured of
satisfactory materials ...".

[...]
>2. There is an implicit claim here that a robot built of different
>materials than are humans could have behavior indistinguishable from
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>humans.  I note that this will not be possible, if the materials are
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>sufficiently different.  (It should be obvious that this might be so.
>For example, if the robot is more massive than a human, it would have
>greater inertia.)  However, the behavioral differences might not
>be such as to be significant for the question of whether or not it
>understood.)

the highlighted passages are an explicit discounting of the initial 
conditions.  Logically, any reasoning that proceeds from 'discounted
assumptions' will diverge with 'accepted assumptions'.

>That is, this thing you called circular, and a discounting of operative
>assumptions, was nothing of the sort.

>If you say "X is indistinguishable from human behaviour", this may be
>an assumption that cannot be realized.  (Consider "suppose a glass of
>water has behavior indistinguishable from human behavior".)

[counter point]
   a- Assume the world is round ...
   b- Ah the world cannot be round, since all the water would flow to
      the bottom.  Now, since the world is non-round, what shape could
      it be ?
   a- No, No, I want you to assume, or pretend, suspend disbelief.  Pretend
      the world is round ...

>However, nice person that I am, I'll let you have this point
>("perhaps not in significant ways") and leave you with the
>reference to my earlier arguments that glasses of water might
>well be producing the pehavior in a different way, a way that
>did not count as understanding.

I accept the irony.  Though scoring does me no improvement.  Maybe the 
earth is non-sphericial anyway and the posters in the USA are all small
machines in a Chinese Room.

There is a total fire ban here this week, and I practice safe keyboard-
craft.

... Will
-- 

_____ "Though the course may change, Rivers ~always~ reach the sea." lz _____
 _--_|\    William Mason                 ACSnet:    william@syacus.acus.OZ
/ ACUS \   Aust Ctr UNISYS S/w           Internet:  william@syacus.acus.OZ.AU


