From: Richard Loosemore (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Sep 08 2005 - 12:44:14 MDT
Michael Vassar wrote:
> I don't think these proposals will be very popular around here,
> especially since they pretty much lead nowhere in GOFAI development but
> it is at least plausible to me that Analytical Philosophy and
> Linguistics still have something to contribute to GAI.
In general, I agree, but my feeling is that where these don't come under
the heading of Cognitive Psychology, they tend to be less useful.
For example, Chomsky (lovable though he is) tries to insist that
implementation is irrelevant to his programme ... and if you follow that
argument all the way down the line, you end up in the realm of things
like the Possible Worlds view of semantics, and *that* in turn can lead
one into making statements about infinite computing power (which brings
us back to my parallel post (just sent out this minute) about
Complexity). I notice that, in response to separate questions, Eliezer
mentioned functions on possible worlds...
And for analytic philosophy, I think Wittgenstein is a goldmine of ideas.
On reflection, the above comments look critical, but they are not meant
to be: yes, absolutely, someone should know something about both
Analytic Philosophy and Linguistics.
So the question is, how much should one know of these fields?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:52 MDT