From: Eliezer Yudkowsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 15 2005 - 12:43:58 MST
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> 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 think I've said my position on this subject in "A Technical Explanation
of Technical Explanation", which for those who missed it is at
> I don't think cognitive science or AI are all that mature yet.
Are you speaking of (a) the sum of all cognitive science known to any
person anywhere on Earth, or (b) your particular thoughts about cognitive
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://intelligence.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT