Newsgroups: comp.ai.nat-lang,alt.cyberspace,alt.internet,alt.net-scandal,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Eliza (was Re: Are there non-humans lurking on Internet/Usenet?)
Message-ID: <jqbD3t9Ct.MzK@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <D3oxrJ.DHu@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <3hb12k$1le@mp.cs.niu.edu> <jqbD3pB6w.94K@netcom.com> <D3qvLB.vy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 00:58:05 GMT
Lines: 104
Sender: jqb@netcom9.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.nat-lang:2867 comp.ai:27368 comp.ai.philosophy:25453

In article <D3qvLB.vy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <jqbD3pB6w.94K@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>>In article <3hb12k$1le@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>>>In <D3oxrJ.DHu@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>>
>>>>It's still sometimes difficult to convince people who "ought to
>>>>know better" (a.g. AI phd students) that Eliza does not have "some"
>>>>understanding.  Indeed, I'm pretty sure that the people in comp.ai.phil
>>>>can come up with a number of arguments to support that view (ie, that
>>>>Eliza has some understanding).
>>
>>Why it difficult to do this convincing?  
>
>I don't know.

Perhaps the arguments given are not sufficiently cogent.  Perhaps even those
who "ought to know better" do in fact know better.  Apparently you believe that
the best way to support a position is to ridicule those who have a different
position.

>>Why can people in c.a.p come up with arguments of this sort?  
>>Are they fools?  Are they in the grip of an ideology?
>
>Perhaps it's because they think philosophical disputes can be
>resolved by looking in dictionaries.

Are dictionaries irrelevant?

Do you have any other enlightening thoughts as to why people can come up with
arguments that you apparently feel to be a priori (no rebuttal needed,
apparently) absurd?

>>>I would have difficulty coming up with arguments that Eliza has
>>>some understanding.  Or at least I would have difficulty doing
>>>so with a straight face.
>>>
>>>>                                Whether they can come up with better
>>>>arguements against the view is less clear.
>>
>>An interesting bit of innuendo, Jeff.  Perhaps you could move up to a higher
>>plane and simply give us your best argument.
>
>For what?

No, I guess you can't move up to a higher plane.  I was suggesting that you
give your best argument agains the view that Eliza has some understanding.
Do you have such an argument?

>That it's less clear that people in comp.ai.phil
>can come up with better arguments against the view that Eliza
>has some understanding?  Well, so far we have one person
>saying (quite reasonably in my view)

Perhaps you could give your reasoning.

I see that you are keeping counts on arguments again, as with the "pro-TT
argument", of the numbers of people on each "side".  A natural thing to do,
seeing as how highly you were lauded for this approach to philosophy the last
time around.

>"it is so obvious that
>there is no understanding, I cannot easily comprehend what it
>is that I am supposed to be arguing against", and we have
>one person arguing that Eliza does have some understanding.

Why do you find these meta-facts interesting or worth noting?

>>>If asked to argue against Eliza understanding, I would be
>>>nonplussed.  It is so obvious that there is no understanding, I
>>>cannot easily comprehend what it is that I am supposed to be arguing
>>>against.
>>
>>Given this definition of understanding from Random House 2nd ed.:
>> 	
>>	knowledge of or familiarity with a particular thing; skill in dealing
>>	with or handling something
>>
>>I would say that Eliza displays *some* understanding.  
>
>Well, there's one argument from comp.ai.phil in support of Eliza
>having some understanding.

Well, I suppose that you could tally it up that way.  More sophisticated
readers such as Neil Rickert may grasp that I was getting at something
deeper, such as that clarity of the meanings of terms is relevant.

>>Perhaps if you or Jeff
>>could offer your definitions of the word, any disagreement over the issue
>>could be resolved.
>
>It'll just turn into arguments about the definitions.

Wheras if we minimize clarity of meaning we can have nice calm discussions,
eh?  Incredibly enough, Jeff, one can point out that *given* a particular
definition some conclusion does or does not follow, as I did above.  This
process can be used to clarify meanings, explore nuances, uncover assumptions,
deconstruct ambiguities, do philosophy.  Rather than make a career out of
pointing out that people who ought to know better don't, that pro-TT arguments
are "shaping up nicely", that Dan Dennett distorts Hardin only no you can't
show it but then again Mark Rosenfelder can't show he doesn't nah nah nah.

-- 
<J Q B>

