Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!XEROX.COM!Newman.pasa From: Newman.pasa@XEROX.COM Newsgroups: mod.ai Subject: Re: Common Sense Message-ID: <860708-173132-2464@Xerox> Date: Tue, 8-Jul-86 20:30:00 EDT Article-I.D.: Xerox.860708-173132-2464 Posted: Tue Jul 8 20:30:00 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 10-Jul-86 23:15:01 EDT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 16 Approved: ailist@sri-ai.arpa Philosophically, Sherry Marcus' ideas about common sense are poor in the same sense that I think Searle and Dreyfus' ideas about why AI won't ever happen are poor. As near as I can tell all three end up with some feature of human intelligence which cannot be automated for basically unexplained reasons. Marcus' problem is simpler than the others (why can't a computer have a real world common sense database like a human's?), but it is the same basic philosophical trap. All three appear to believe that there is some magical property of human intelligence (Searle and Dreyfus appear to believe that there is something special about the biological nature of human intelligence) which cannot be automated, but none can come up with a reason for why this is so. Comments?? I would particularly like to hear what you think Searle or Dreyfus would say to this. >>Dave