Hi Ben, Clearly you're not averse to philosophy, and as a result, your designs for OpenCog and presumably Novamente are well thought out and robust. Regardless of whether everyone agrees with the philosophy behind the design, it's obvious that it's well considered and that the design is consistent with it.
I'm happy to be wrong about my perception. Maybe it's just that I see folks who are striving for AGI but whose designs are informed by a carefully considered philosophy that I simply don't agree with. Yet, I still feel there's truth to what I wrote earlier. T --- On Tue, 8/5/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think your assertion is not correct... Personally I published a book in 2006 called "The Hidden Pattern", which is largely preoccupied with philosophy of mind Anecdotally, I have found many AGI researchers to be deeply interested in (and knowledgeable of) philosophy of mind On the other hand, the majority of **narrow AI** researchers probably see themselves largely as computer scientists, and are more interested in the mathematical and algorithmic and engineering aspects of AI than in philosophical aspects. Another point is that the style of scientific journals and conferences in AI does not lend itself to philosophical discourse. So the publication record may minimize the role of philosophy, more so than is reflective of actual practice. One of the interesting intellectual developments of the last few decades is the way cog sci, AI and philosophy of mind have developed synergetically ... -- Ben G On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK, this brings up something that I'd like to pose to the list as a whole. I realize this will be a somewhat antagonistic question - my intent here is not to offend (or to single anyone out), especially since I could be wrong. But my impression is that with some exceptions, AI researchers in general don't want to touch philosophy. And that astounds me, because of all the possible domains of engineering, AI research has to be the domain of the most philosophical consequence. Trying to build AI without doing philosophy, to me, is like trying to build a rocketship without doing math. I believe there are a few reasons for why this is. One, philosophy is hard and very often boring. Two, there is a bias against philosophers that don't build things as being somehow irrelevant. And three, subjecting your own ideas to the philosophical scrutiny of others is threatening. There's a kind of honor in testing your ideas by building it, so one can save some face in the event of failure (it was an unsuccessful experiment). But a philosophical rejection that demonstrates through careful logic the infeasibility of your design before you even build it - well, that just makes you feel stupid. I invite those of you who feel like this is unfair to correct my perceptions. Terren --- On Tue, 8/5/08, John G. Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Searle's Chinese Room argument is one of those > things that makes me > > wonder if I'm living in the same (real or virtual) > reality as everyone > > else. Everyone seems to take it very seriously, but to > me, it seems like > > a transparently meaningless argument. > > > > I think that the Chinese Room argument is an AI > philosophical anachronistic > meme that is embedded in the AI community and promulgated > by monotonous > drone-like repetitivity. Whenever I hear it I'm like > let me go read up on > that for the n'th time and after reading I'm like > WTF are they talking > about!?!? Is that one the grand philosophical hang-ups in > AI thinking? > > I wish I had a mega-meme expulsion cannon and could expunge > that mental knot > of twisted AI arterialsclerosis. > > John > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
