> Bruno wrote:
>>Jeanne Houston wrote:
>>> I am a layperson who reads these discussions
>>> out of avid interest, and I hope that someone
>>> will answer a question that I would like to ask
>>> in order to enhance my own understanding.
>>> There is an emphasis on AI running through
>>> these discussions, yet you seem to delve into
>>> very philosophical questions. Are the philosophical
>>> discussions applicable to the development of AI
>>
>> I would say so, but probably not in a predictible way
>> ... Today the reverse is still more true.
>>
>>> (i.e., trying to grasp all aspects of the mind of
>>> man if you are trying to develop a true copy),
>>
>>... or in some indirect way perhaps, by giving evidences
>> that no man can grasp all aspect of man, so that if we
>> make a copy, some bets or hopes, or faith, or things
>> like that are in order.
>>
>>> or are they only interesting diversions that pop-up from
>>> time to time. My thanks to anyone who wishes to respond.
>>>
>>> Jeanne Houston
>>
>> I do use explicitly the computationailist hypothesis
>> (the thesis that I am a machine) which is stronger
>> than the strong AI thesis (machine can think).
>> Actually I am no more in need of comp (I realised
>> that my theory works for a large variety of non-machines),
>> but, still, with the comp hyp, the reasoning is simpler.
>>
>> Bruno
>On 2/6/06, daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden <daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden.com> wrote:
>> We can't JUST DO things (like AI). Whenever we DO things, we are
>> THINKING ABOUT them. I'd venture to say that HOW WE THINK ABOUT
THINGS
>> (e.g. philosophy, epistemology, etc.) is even MORE important that
DOING
>> THINGS (engineering, sales, etc.). That is one way of looking at the
>> advantage that we humans have over machines. We have the capability
to
>> not just do things, but to know why we are doing them. This runs
>> counter to the whole PHILOSOPHY (mind you) of modern science, that we
>> are simply machines, and that there is no WHY. This modern
philosophy,
>> if taken to its extreme, is the death of the humanness.
>>
>> Tom Caylor
>
Jef Allbright wrote:
>To realize that we are "just" machines in a physical world, and that
>this validates and enhances--rather than diminishes--the romance, the
>meaning, and the mystery of human existence, is a very empowering
>conceptualization.
>
>To travel into the void, leaving behind myths and tradition, and then
>to emerge from the void, to see that all is as it was, but standing on
>physical law, both known and not yet known, is to gain the freedom to
>grow.
>
>- Jef
>http://www.jefallbright.net
>Increasing awareness for increasing morality
Brent Meeker wrote:
>I think you've got it the wrong way 'round.
>The view of modern science is that we are
>machines and machines can do philosophy and
>know they are doing it and can have reasons why.
>It is the death of human hubris - which may
>eventually succumb to the wounds it has
>received since Copernicus.
>
>Brent Meeker
So Bruno says that:
a) "I am a machine."
b) "...no man can grasp all aspect of man"
Tom says that to philosophize is one aspect of humanness that is more
than a machine (i.e. simply following a set of instructions).
Jef and Brent say that we are machines who (that?) philosophize.
Brent says that realizing we are machines is the beginning of (or
another step in) the death of human hubris (arrogance).
I thought that Bruno maintains that humility is on the side of
realizing that we cannot totally understand ourselves.
Pascal, "Reason can begin again when we recognize what we cannot know."
Could we try to make sense of this, given that we believe in sense?
Tom
Received on Mon Feb 06 2006 - 16:34:15 PST