Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!agate!ig!uwmcsd1!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu!acha
From: acha@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu (Anurag Acharya)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: this is philosophy ??!!?
Message-ID: <1588@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 3 May 88 19:05:06 GMT
References: <4134@super.upenn.edu> <3200014@uiucdcsm> <1484@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <30502@linus.UUCP> <1069@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Sender: netnews@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 48
Keywords: I can't believe it

In article <1069@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
>I am always suspicious of any academic activity which has to request that it
>becomes a philosophical no-go area.  I know of no other area of activity which
>is so dependent on such a wide range of unwarranted assumptions.  Perhaps this
>has something to do with the axiomatic preferences of its founders, who came
>from mathematical traditions where you could believe anything as long as it was
>logically consistent.  

Just when is an assumption warranted ? By your yardstick (it seems ), 'logically 
inconsistent' assumptions are more likely to be warranted than the logically
consistent ones. Am I parsing you wrong or do you really claim that ?!

>logical errors in an argument is not enough to sensibly dismiss it, otherwise
>we would have to become resigned to widespread ignorance. 

Same problem again ( sigh ! ). Just how do you propose to argue with logically
inconsistent arguments ? Come on Mr. Cockton, what gives ? 

> My concern over AI
>is, like some psychology, it has no integration with social theories, especially
>those which see 'reality' as a negotiated outcome of social processes, and not
>logically consistent rules. 

You wish to assert that reality is a negotiated outcome of social processes ???
Imagine Mr. Cockton, you are standing on the 36th floor of a building and you and
your mates decide that you are Superman and can jump out without getting hurt.
By the 'negotiated outcome of social processes' claptrap, you really are Superman.
Would you then jump out and have fun ?

> Your system should prevaricate, stall, duck the
>issue, deny there's a problem, pray, write to an agony aunt, ask its
>mum, wait a while, get its friends to ring it up and ask it out ...

Whatever does all that stuff have to do with intelligence per se ?

Mr. Cockton, what constitutes a proof among you and your "philosopher/sociologist/.." 
colleagues ? Since logical consistency is taboo, logical errors are acceptable,
reality and truth are functions of the current whim of the largest organized gang
around ( oh! I am sorry, they are the 'negotiated ( who by ? ) outcomes of social
processes ( what processes ? )') how do you guys conduct research ? Get together and
vote on motions or what ?

-- anurag

-- 
Anurag Acharya		      Arpanet: acharya@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu  	
			     
"There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're
 talking about"   -- John von Neumann