To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Thomas Johnston <tmj44p@xxxxxxx> |
Date: | Mon, 25 May 2015 23:56:14 +0000 (UTC) |
Message-id: | <801519009.1505185.1432598174291.JavaMail.yahoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
John,
You
said, referring to my quote from Conceptual Spaces, p.1:
<<<...that
quotation is an extremely oversimplified and misleading summary of AI
and cognitive science.
>>>
If
that's what it had been intended as, or indeed presented as, then
that's certainly what it would have been. But I didn't intend it as
such, or present it as such. In hopes of forestalling any such
misunderstanding, I added that:
<<<
I
certainly did not intend to suggest, with my “vs.”, that there is
nothing more to current issues in cognitive science, and philosophy
of mind and language, other than this specific debate.
>>>
In
pointing out that I did include this remark, I am certainly adding
nothing substantive to our exchange of views. This present reply, sad to say,
is a somewhat defensive remark on my part, defending myself against
an attribution of ignorance which is definitely not warranted.
With
your credentials, you don't have to bother mentioning that you are
aware “that there is ….. more to current issues in cognitive
science, and philosophy of mind and language, other than this
specific debate.” With my lack of credentials, I guess I feel that
I do. But I do indeed mention that. Indeed, in certain areas of this
rather large and amorphous field of interest, I insist that I am, in
fact, relatively well-grounded in the literature, and comfortable in working with the concepts.
Regardless,
Best
wishes,
Tom On Monday, May 25, 2015 4:30 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Tom, I am well aware of those debates and of the intensity on all sides: > This is the “vs.” I am referring to, and in spite of your “should”, the > facts on the current ground is that there is this debate. Indeed, the > article by Fodor and Lepore and the reply by David Chalmers, both of > which you recently provided links to, make it quite clear how intense > the “vs.” remains. The most cutthroat debates are among philosophers and theologians -- primarily because they're searching for certainty, and they have no way of knowing when they're wrong. That was the point of my talk at the Mexican AI conference in November: http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/micai.pdf Why has AI failed? And how can it succeed? That wrangling led to single-paradigm systems, which are very strong on one type of problem and useless for anything else. > Here's Gardenfors, on my "vs.": > “Within cognitive science, there are currently two dominating > approaches to the problem of modeling representations.” From the > point of view of the symbolic approach (which I and others call > the “mental representation” approach), “cognition is seen as > essentially being computation, involving symbol manipulation.” I presented a guest lecture at Lund at PG's invitation, so I won't be too harsh on him. Peter did good work on belief revision, which I strongly recommend. He's the G of the AGM axioms. But that quotation is an extremely oversimplified and misleading summary of AI and cognitive science. Marvin Minsky's _Society of Mind_ is a good antidote to that kind of partisanship. See the reference in Slide 13 of micai.pdf: http://web.media.mit.edu/~push/CognitiveDiversity.pdf That was a strong influence on my "Flexible Modular System" (FMF): http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/arch.pdf A quotation from arch.pdf > The lack of progress in building general-purpose intelligent systems > could be explained by several different hypotheses: > > * Simulating human intelligence on a digital computer is impossible. > > * The ideal architecture for true AI has not yet been found. > > * Human intelligence is so flexible that no fixed architecture can do > more than simulate a single aspect of what is humanly possible. > > Many people have presented strong, but not completely convincing > arguments for the first hypothesis. In the search for an ideal > architecture, others have implemented a variety of at best partially > successful designs. The purpose of this paper is to explore the third > hypothesis: propose a flexible modular framework that can be tailored > to an open-ended variety of architectures for different kinds of > applications. For examples that show how the FMF works, see "Two paradigms are better than one, and multiple paradigms are even better": http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/paradigm.pdf Fundamental principle: Neuroscientists are the first to emphasize that *nobody* really knows how the brain works. For philosophers to engage in endless wrangling about the virtues of one half-baked theory or another is fundamentally misguided. Recommendation in micai.pdf: Implement various theories. Test them alone and in different combinations. See what works. Collaborate! 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] Fruit fly emotions mimic human emotions - ontology discovery possible?, Bruce Schuman |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Fruit fly emotions mimic human emotions - ontology discovery possible?, John F Sowa |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Architecture of Intelligent Systems - Flexible Modular Framework, Rich Cooper |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Fruit fly emotions mimic human emotions - ontology discovery possible?, John F Sowa |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |