 |
| |
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Absolutely, when anyone tries to predict the future it relies on faith -- scientist or philosopher -- it doesn't matter.
|
Then if you believe this I don't see how you have any rational grounds for any of your scientific beliefs - so next time we find you having a go at someone over theirs you will be damned a sophist or a hypocrite.
In fact the problem of induction is not the major difficulty it seems to be, at least in my view. I suspect that the solution is to realise that our notion of time is part of theory and that supposing otherwise tends to skew our notion of what counts as evidence in favour of immediate sense data or some other hypostasised notion of evidence. I plan to work on this in the future as I think that it is worth trying to solve it. After all no one thought that anyone would solve the problem of Fermat's last theorem, but it happened. Merely saying, "That can't be solved, so who cares." is a betrayal of the values that are fundamental to any academic discipline and represent the worst form of intellectual laziness or cowardice.
Unlike you I suspend judgement on the question of whether it is possible for human beings to have real knowledge or not. I don't think that question has been satisfactorily answered one way or the other hence the best thing to do is suspend judgement. I certainly am reluctant to endorse your dogmatic scepticism.
People who are interested in finding grounds for human knowledge, rather than taking everything on faith (which is a lame solution) are interested in solving the problem of induction. Some people are just interested in knowledge for its own sake. These include scientists, philosophers, and all sorts of others. It includes me; I like knowing. If there is a solution to be had, it will be a conceptual one which will be arrived at by philosophical reasoning, for there is simply no alternative.
What's really at issue here is that you don't understand what philosophers do - witness the growing number of howlers you have committed in this thread. Despite what you say philosophers and scientists seem to work quite well together in many situations - I know I have seen it - and cognitive science involves philosophical questions and methods. These are indisputable facts. The fact that you don't seem to like or find any use for philosophical method doesn't mean that no one else does, and you have failed to come up with any argument that doesn't rest on a misunderstanding that proves that it is useless.
In fact, "that's just some bull**** that philosophers talk about", strikes me as one of the worst reasons ever offered in refutation by anyone. Most of your answers are mere variations on this tedious theme.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
quote:
I would disagree with this, none of the people studying AI have ever consulted or worked with a philosopher...
C'mon, Asher, a cursory glance through the American Association for Artificial Intelligence popped up:
quote:
CV FOR AARON SLOMAN
BSc Mathematics and Physics 1st class, Cape Town, 1956, DPhil in philosophy, Oxford 1962
Rhodes Scholar at Balliol College Oxford 1957-1960, Senior Scholar at St Antony's College 1960-62. GEC Professorial Fellow 1984-6. Elected Fellow of the American Association for AI in 1991. Elected honorary life Fellow of AISB in 1997. Elected Fellow of ECCAI in 1999. Regularly invited as keynote speaker at seminars, international conferences and workshops.
Taught philosophy at Hull then Sussex University for several years, but decided around 1970 that AI provided the best context for studying many old philosophical problems. Did battle with McCarthy and Hayes at IJCAI in 1971 (paper on non-logical representations reprinted in AI Journal 1971). After a year learning about AI in Edinburgh in 1972-3 as SRC senior visiting fellow returned to Sussex and later helped to found the School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, and wrote an influential book ``The Computer Revolution in Philosophy'' (1978).
Continued working on philosophy, on the architecture of visual systems, and tools for teaching and research in AI. Managed the development of Poplog, a sophisticated multi-language AI development environment (sold by ISL for several years, but now available free of charge, though still used in commercial products, e.g. Clementine.)
After 27 years at Sussex wanted a change. In 1991 moved to the School of Computer Science in the University of Birmingham, where he also collaborates with members of the School of Psychology. Still working on AI tools (e.g. the SIM_AGENT toolkit), hybrid architectures for intelligent agents, the evolution of consciousness, architectural support for motivation and emotions, issues concerned with representation, mathematical thinking, vision, and related philosophical problems in AI and computing.
Most of my recent papers can be found in the Cognition and Affect project directory at Birmingham http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/cogaff/
My software tools and much AI teaching material are accessible from the Free Poplog site: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/p...freepoplog.html
including the SimAgent toolkit http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/cogaff/simagent.html
|
See Asher, you don't know what you are talking about.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-03-2003 07:14
ACK!
|