From: Ben Goertzel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 15 2005 - 11:54:45 MST
> Ben Goertzel wrote:
> > About philosophy of mind: I agree somewhat with your criticism. My own
> > approach to AI is founded on years of thinking I did about the
> philosophy of
> > mind, as well as more scientific considerations. I think that Eliezer's
> > work could use a little more depth in this area.
> I also did years of thinking on philosophy of mind when I was a teenager.
> It's a good thing I didn't spend much time embarassing myself by
> writing it
> up, or at least that I didn't publish.
I'm not sure whether you're saying
a) that writing down and publishing thoughts on the philosophy of mind is
b) that YOUR particular thoughts about philosophy of mind were such that it
would have been embarrassing for you to write them down and publish them
If it's a, then I disagree. I think that when a science is at a
foundational phase, philosophy has a lot to offer it. Philosophy and
physics were more intertwined when modern physics was just starting out --
e.g. Ernst Mach, Niels Bohr did some serious philosophical writing in
parallel with their scientific work, and there wasn't always a rigid
boundary between the two. Going back to Leibniz this is even more clear.
The more mature a science is, the less need it has for philosophy, it would
seem. Philosophy, among other purposes, helps to point the way for
science -- but a mature science already knows which way it's going. I don't
think cognitive science or AI are all that mature yet.
If it's b, then I guess you'd know better than me...
-- Ben G
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT