Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert
From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self-Awareness
Keywords: Look, this is basic scientific method we're on about
Message-ID: <1238@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 26 May 88 08:12:29 GMT
References: <1029@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <4134@super.upenn.edu> <3200014@uiucdcsm> <1484@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <5100@pucc.Princeton.EDU> <1099@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <5474@venera.isi.edu> <1173@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <5569@venera.isi.edu>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert
From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self-Awareness
Keywords: Look, this is basic scientific method we're on about
Message-ID: <1238@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 26 May 88 08:12:29 GMT
References: <1029@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <4134@super.upenn.edu> <3200014@uiucdcsm> <1484@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <5100@pucc.Princeton.EDU> <1099@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <5474@venera.isi.edu> <1173@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <5569@venera.isi.edu>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Lines: 29

In article <5569@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) writes:
>>I cite 4 years reading of comp.ai.digest seminar abstracts as evidence.
>>
>Now that Gilbert Cockton has revealed the source of his knowledge of artificial
>intelligence
OK, OK, then I call every AI text I've ever read as well.  Let's see
Nielson, Charniak and the other one, Rich, Schank and Abelson,
Semantic Information Processing (old, but ...), etc.  (I use AI
programming concepts quite often, I just don't fall into the delusion
that they have any bearing on mind).

The test is easy, look at the references.  Do the same for AAAI and
IJCAI papers.  The subject area seems pretty introspective to me.
If you looked at an Education conference proceedings, attended by people who
deal with human intelligence day in day out (rather than hack LISP), you
would find a wide range of references, not just specialist Education references.
You will find a broad understanding of humanity, whereas in AI one can
often find none, just logical and mathematical references. I still
fail to see how this sort of intellectual background can ever be
regarded as adequate for the study of human reasoning.  On what 
grounds does AI ignore so many intellectual traditions?

As for scientific method, the conclusions you drew from a single
statement confirm my beliefs about the role of imagination in AI.
-- 
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