Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!violet.berkeley.edu!ed298-ak
From: ed298-ak@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Clarifying Dreyfus's work (Re: The Success of AI).
Message-ID: <5601@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 23-Oct-87 12:32:24 EST
Article-I.D.: jade.5601
Posted: Fri Oct 23 12:32:24 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Oct-87 16:04:13 EST
References: <1922@gryphon.CTS.COM> <5505@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <3852@venera.isi.edu>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: ed298-ak@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 33
Keywords: Philosophy of mind, Rationalist tradition.
Summary: Read his first book if seriously interested in his objections.



          I would like to clarify some of the aspects of Hubert Dreyfus's
     work that were overlooked by Stephen Smoliar in his note.  I won't try
     to defend Dreyfus, since I doubt that many people on this SIG is really
     open-minded enough to consider the alternative Dreyfus proposes, but
     for the sake of correctness:

          Most of Mr. Smoliar points are in fact dealt with in his first
     book.  His second book was intended more for the general public, thus
     it glosses over a number of important arguments that are in the first
     book.  As a matter of opinion, I like the first book better, although
     it is probably important to read both books to understand his full
     position.  The first book is:

               What Computers Can't Do, The Limits of Artificial
                    intelligence, Harper and Row, 1979.

          One point where Mr. Smoliar misses Dreyfus completely is in his
     assumption that Dreyfus is taking about models.  Dreyfus is far more
     radical than that.  He believes that humans don't make models, rather
     they carry a collection of specific cases (images?)

          Anyone who is at all honest in this field has to admit that there
     are a lot of failures to be accounted for.  While I feel that Dreyfus
     is too pessimistic in his outlook, I feel that there is value in
     looking at his perspective.  I would hope that by reflecting on (and
     reacting against) such skepticism, A.I. researchers would be able to
     sharpen their understanding of both human and Artificial Intelligence.


                                   Edouard Lagache
                                   lagache@violet.berkeley.edu