Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Dualisms for A.I. Message-ID: <2592@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Date: 15 Mar 89 10:19:04 GMT References: <4369@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <2484@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <820@odyssey.ATT.COM> Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland Lines: 30 In article <820@odyssey.ATT.COM> gls@odyssey.ATT.COM (g.l.sicherman) writes: >Surely the dualism most relevant to A.I. is mind vs. body? The >fundamental assumption of Frankensteinian A.I. is that a mind can >exist without a body! > No, 3 and 4 are especially relevant as 3 may mean no machine ethics and 4 means no 'objective' data about outside-the-lab human behaviour. Like Skinner's behaviourists, AI is full of physics-envy types who wade in to the study of human behaviour with no idea of the limits of scientific method. Dualism 4 is highly relevant as an education to these types. Winograd and Flores was largely an exploration of the implications of Dualism 4 for 'intelligent' systems design. Note though that the book is very derivative, and there are much better commentaries on the standpoints discussed (go and ask a social theorist, or a philosopher if you can find one who isn't a full time logician). >> 3) Ethical - fact and value statements are not reducible to a >> common form or means of verification >> 4) Explanatory - human actions are not 'caused' like natural events, >> they involve reasons and motives >> >See the second half of _Gestalt Therapy_ for a good catalogue of basic >dualisms and what harm they do. fuller reference please? -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs !ukc!glasgow!gilbert