Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ria!cs!wsaba From: wsaba@cscs.uwindsor.ca (Walid Saba) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: AGAINST FORMALISM? Keywords: REASONING (is the keyword)! Message-ID: <549@schoenfinkel.cscs.uwindsor.ca> Date: 14 Jun 91 04:55:30 GMT Organization: School of Computer Science, Univ. of Windsor, Ontario, Canada Lines: 45 It seems to me that the psychology - philosophy debate in AI is not leading anywhere. The reason is that it is not discussing the real issue. The question should be "what sort of reasoning do we need to simulate, in order to simulate intelligence?". The debate should not be about the question of whether we should use logical reasoning or not? OF COURSE WE SHOULD! But what sort of reasoning? is the right question. For example, when being told Sam is pregnant. an "intelligent" system should infer some other facts. For example, =g=> Sam is a female =g=> Sam is alive =g=> Sam's age is within a certain range (depending on the context, indicating whether Sam is human, or perhaps a cat). ...etc. Is this "logical" reasoning? Of course. Whatever `logic' is used (default, common sense, etc.), we are using some logic. As a matter of fact, every formalism has its own logic. The point here is that the argument against some (constrained) logics should not be extrapolated to the point were we ignore the simple fact that ANY FORMALISM HAS ITS LOGIC. How suitable this logic is beside the point. Did we ever stop to think how we (humans) compute the square root of a number. We know that the routines we built compute the square root in nano-seconds, and everything is fine... Is it? Well, these are numerical computations and in that sphere things are manageable. But couldn't the same be true of symbolic computations?? Walid Saba School of Computer Science University of Windsor Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4 (519) 253-4232 ext. 3003/3005 email: wsaba@cs.uwindsor.ca