Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!allegra!alice!rhh
From: rhh@research.att.com (Ron Hardin <9289-11216> 0112110)
Subject: Re: Does AI make philosophy obsolete?
Message-ID: <DFnG0u.1Gu@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
References: <42ggeu$3no@netnews.upenn.edu> <43usjd$1nci@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <kunderwo-250995081335@bettymac2.oit.duke.edu> <44efmb$jdm@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 04:19:42 GMT
Lines: 17
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:33745 sci.cognitive:9762 sci.psychology.theory:846

Chris Malcolm writes:
>However, computer science showed us the extraordinary utility of
>recursion which was not infinite, but which bottomed out in a terminal
>case, and computer vision showed how this could be applied to computer
>image processing.  Thus by experimental demonstration Hume's problem
>was shown to be a misconception: what Hume thought was a damning
>property of a proposed explanation of vision -- recursion -- turned
>out to be the key to how it could be made to work.

I don't follow this argument.  Who's watching the screen whatever
depth it terminates at?  (Whatever provoked the question still
provokes it.)

The point of the original objection isn't that it's infinite,
but that nobody ever sees anything.

(A grammatical remark, as Wittgenstein would put it.)
