To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Thomas Johnston <tmj44p@xxxxxxx> |
Date: | Tue, 21 Apr 2015 20:06:40 +0000 (UTC) |
Message-id: | <1772401245.1797289.1429646800757.JavaMail.yahoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
I'll look at that Fodor article on the Churchlands. thanks. On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:21 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: On 4/20/2015 12:40 PM, Thomas Johnston wrote: > But it seems to me a very bold assertion that the Churchlands > and Jerry are such marginal authors. I would not call them marginal authors. And I have cited Fodor on many occasions (including the venerable Katz & Fodor article of 1963). I also believe that he has made some good arguments *against* many competing theories. Following is one against Paul Churchland: http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/tech_rpt/MeaningSim46.PDF All at sea in semantic space: Churchland on meaning similarity. I agree with most psychologists and neuroscientists that we cannot perceive identity. The best we can do is to perceive similarity and then infer that the combined evidence (context, background knowledge, multiple similarities, etc.) is sufficient for identity. So I agree with Churchland that similarity is what we perceive, but I also agree with Fodor that identity is an important concept. I also agree that the Churchlands have done some good work at detailed levels. But their good work is overshadowed by their most egregiously foolhardy term 'folk psychology'. The greatest minds from antiquity to the present have contributed very important insights on psychological matters. To dismiss all that work with a single catchy phrase is the height of hubris (or other terms, such as advertising hype to disparage the competition). Most neuroscientists admit: (a) the research of the past half century has contributed an enormous amount of new information and insights; (b) every question that's answered opens up even more puzzles and new questions; and (c) despite all the new knowledge, nobody really knows how the brain works. Conclusion: Many conflicting theories inspired useful technology in the AI toolkit. If the tools are useful for a particular task, then use them. Any controversies in the minds of the people who designed the tools are irrelevant. John _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Watch out Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine Learning - ZDNet - 2015.04.10, John F Sowa |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Watch out Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine Learning - ZDNet - 2015.04.10, John F Sowa |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Watch out Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine Learning - ZDNet - 2015.04.10, John F Sowa |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Watch out Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine Learning - ZDNet - 2015.04.10, John F Sowa |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |