[Wittrs] Re: The CRA in Symbolic Form (According to Joe)
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:41:39 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> At the beginning of his argument, Joe clearly defines the meanings
> of the marks in plain English.
I obviously anticipated that kind of response, though I had expected it
to come from Joe.
The idea behind AI, is that you could have a database that clearly
defines the meanings of all of the marks used. And then you could
manipulate those meanings by manipulating the marks. If you connect the
results appropriately to external behavior, you should have a system
that responds appropriately to meaningful input. The understanding
would be in the system as a whole, as demonstrated by these meaningful
responses.
The reason I am skeptical of AI, is that I am skeptical about the
possibility of having a database that clearly defines the meanings to
be used. For the case in point, though you say that "Joe clearly
defines the meanings", in fact the definitions are not at all clear -
something that Stuart has already pointed out
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/5439> .
It has long puzzled me, that philosophers so often make bogus logical
arguments. They take an intuitive but unconvincing argument, symbolize
it, and present it as a formal symbolic argument. Perhaps they believe
that symbolizing the argument makes it more convincing. However, I see
the effect as mainly one of obfuscation.
Regards,
Neil
Other related posts:
