Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert
From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free Will-Randomness and Question-Structure
Message-ID: <1214@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 23 May 88 09:02:41 GMT
References: <22533@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> <194@proxftl.UUCP>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Distribution: comp.ai
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 18

In article <194@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
>(N.B.  The mathematician's "true" is not the same thing as the 
> epistemologist's "true".
Which epistemologist?  The reality and truth of mathematical objects
has been a major concern in many branches of philosophy.  Many would
see mathematics, when it succeeds in formalising proof, as one form of
truth.  Perhaps consistency is a better word, and we should reserve
truth for the real thing :-)

This of course would make AI programs true models by correspondence,
rather than internal elegance.  Verification of these models is an
important issue that I'm sure our mathematical idealists are pursuing
with great vigour to the neglect of all else :-)
-- 
Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science,  The University, Glasgow
	gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert

	     The proper object of the study of humanity is humans, not machines