From: H C (lphege@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Aug 18 2005 - 18:17:19 MDT
>From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew@ceruleansystems.com>
>Reply-To: sl4@sl4.org
>To: "sl4@sl4.org" <sl4@sl4.org>
>Subject: Hubris (was: Retrenchment)
>Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:20:40 -0700
>
>On 8/18/05 12:45 PM, "Richard Loosemore" <rpwl@lightlink.com> wrote:
>[...community descriptions elided...]
> > Now, some of these communities are more directly hands-on, while some
> > just watch and comment and contribute from afar, but the six different
> > language that they speak and the six different paradigms they bring to
> > the table are all in some way relevant to the task of understanding how
> > cognitive systems might work, and how we might go about building an AI.
> >
> > But the problem is that you can go into one of these communities and
> > find very talented people who are completely ignorant of what is going
> > on in the others.
>
>
>Ahem... One thing that is fairly obvious from reading your list of six
>communities, is that there are a fair number of people on this list doing
>serious research who very arguably do not fall under any of the categories
>you invented. That you are not aware of the fact that there is at least a
>seventh or eighth community strongly represented on this list suggests that
>you may be guilty of the very problem you outline in the last sentence
>above.
>
>
>One thing that you (and others) may be missing is that this list has been
>around a long time, and that the ideas from many of the communities you
>mention above have been thoroughly vetted and mostly discarded. The list
>is
>pretty quiet these days, ignoring the recent flurry, but there was quite a
>bit of merciless discussion and analysis of theory in the early years.
>Old-timers are not going to be so keen on re-living old battles.
>
>I daresay that you have at least some gaping holes in your understanding of
>the spaces that are considered baseline knowledge on this list for the sake
>of constructive argument.
>
>
> > Could you consider the fact that, even if you *are* a person who is
> > fully conversant in all of these, it is not enough for there to be just
> > one such person working in isolation ..... that it should be an
> > absolutely basic requirement of anyone working in the AI field that they
> > can switch comfortably between all of these six paradigms and draw
> > meaningful connections between them?
>
>
>Could you consider the possibility that many of us have taken everything of
>value from these six paradigms and discarded the lot of them? All six of
>those paradigms (such as they are) are b0rken for various reasons as far as
>I'm concerned, and not because I am ignorant of them.
*ding ding ding*
Knowledge is only as good as it is useful.
Obviously.
>
>
> > CONCLUSION
> >
> > We need a revolution here, folks.
>
>
>You are a little late to the party. You might want to familiarize yourself
>with the theoretical history of this list. There is still a diverse range
>of opinion on this list regarding fundamental design theory, but you appear
>to have pigeonholed everyone on the list without any idea of where people
>on
>this list actually stand theoretically.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>J. Andrew Rogers
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:23:01 MST