Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!aimmi!gilbert From: gilbert@aimmi.UUCP (Gilbert Cockton) Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: Re: Searle, AI, NLP, understanding, ducks Message-ID: <816@aimmi.UUCP> Date: Tue, 28-Oct-86 07:16:26 EST Article-I.D.: aimmi.816 Posted: Tue Oct 28 07:16:26 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Nov-86 03:39:33 EST References: <1933@well.UUCP> <13571@kestrel.ARPA> Reply-To: gilbert@aimmi.UUCP (Gilbert Cockton) Distribution: world Organization: Heriot-Watt/Strathclyde Alvey MMI Unit, Scotland Lines: 24 In article <1933@well.UUCP>, jjacobs@well.UUCP (Jeffrey Jacobs) writes: > (or to describe the transformations, etc). It is much more rigorous > and well defined (aka understood) than other realms of human > endeavor (such as psychology, or even physics). `well-defined' and `understood' are not synonyms where I come from. As an Englishman, and thus an ancestor of the folk who invented the language, can I ask you transatlantic chappies to stop messing around with it. English was very nice until you got your hands on it! Seriously, science tends to generate very well-defined theories, which, more often than not, turn out to be wrong. Under your silly synonymy, this means that falsehood and understanding are equivalent. There is a school of philosophy (and thus unread by the philistine (amateur?) element in AI), which holds that `verstehen' or understanding, is wholly subjective, a personal experience with no linguistic form. Any attempt to define it must therefore fail. Outside of AI with its dated (Platonic?) epistemologies and theories of mind, the logocentrism of tight definitions is becoming something of a joke, although an unpleasant one for anyone who has suffered at the hands of someone else's small print definitions. -- Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Ben Line Building, Edinburgh, EH1 1TN JANET: gilbert@uk.ac.hw.aimmi ARPA: gilbert%aimmi.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ..!{backbone}!aimmi.hw.ac.uk!gilbert