Mentioning Phil phD's

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Japher
Thus, stating that philosophy should not be an entity on to its own.

If that's the standard then the only study that can conceptually be "an entity on to its own" would be mathematics. Everything else must in some way be related to the real world.

Only in mathematics can you create something that is entirely new. Of course, what sometimes happens is that the real world creeps up from behind and relates itself to the mathematics by surprise.

The MRI is possible because somebody stumbled on an obscure mathematical method invented back in the 1920s or 30s that could be used to model the magnetic feedback of 10^25 ionically bonded hydrogens. But for 50-60 years it was a "useless" exercise in playing around with equations.

Agathon, I skipped about a hundred posts in the middle, but maybe nobody's tossed this one into the ring. Of course, this is referring to turn-of-the-(20th)-century philosophy…

A detective story generally describes six living men discussing how it is that a man is dead. A modern philosophic story generally describes six dead men discussing how any man can possible be alive. —Chesterton

[Japher]

Don't be petty, read the rest of the book if you want to find out more. This is from the introductory chapter.

Maybe I will.

And nor should science if the quote is to be believed.

Yes, but I have no argument with that.

I really expected a more constructive reply than this from you, Japher.

Not today. Being lazy.

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
- Albert Einstein

I can agree that philosophy has the potential to assist in creating answers to some of the most perplexing problems of the day. Yet, how can they when they do not understand or are not aware of the problem? Similarly, how can science solve these problems without the philosophy's of science that were established so long ago? If philosophy is to continue to contribute as it has the past it needs to take a more active role in the fields it wishes to improve, and not stand to the side with an 'anti-medle' shield on.

How I am coming to see it:

Philosophy - "We have the potential to help you find the answers you are looking for"

Sciences - "Great, what's the answer?"

Philosophy - "What are you working on?"

Sciences - "I am working on determing the effects of carrier materials on the resistance of spores of Bacillos stearothermophilus to gaseous hydrogen peroxide in an attempt to better understand the methodoly of sterilization"

Philosophy - "huh? Can't you just ask a simple one, like how many stars are in the sky?"

On the same note the Sciences will take a very cosmopolitan approach to the analysis of their results, or at least something that is considered to be so today, but years ago was considered a novel approach to analysis.

A point to note, however, is that even with the rudimentary philosophy of Scientist, something which is centuries old, they will conceivably reach the results the seek within a given amount of time. If philosophy were to "intervene" on a technical level then perhaps these solutions could be quicker, and in the end present a new method of thought. Yet, if science was to intervene with philosophy what would they acheive? The same scrutiny and pesimistic ideals that you are receiving from Asher and I.

What this says to me: Science can be productive and meaningful without philosophy. Yet, philosophy, as we know it today, would not exist without science and/or other fields.

This is odd to me, since IMO science, and these other fields, exist primarly because of the philosophies of yester year, and became practical because they were able to be applied. The Scientist/Philosopher is a title I see so much in the past, and barely any of today. Why is that? Is it because of the educational system or because of what philosophy has become?

I guess I wasn't too lazy.

(Despite a couple of snoozers, I rather enjoy this debate. I am, by the way, learning a lot.)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

If you know a philosopher who does AI, why do you dance around and avoid the question when I ask, specifically, what they do?

I already answered that question. They want to use the results of AI research to shed some light on the nature of the human mind. In other words to see if the mind can be understood as a computer. Part of this is a conceptual (read philosophical) inquiry. In other words whether Artificial intelligence is really that or something else. Thus, some people work in both fields.

It's not my field, so even though I am familiar with the basic strategies involved, I recommend you go to the horse's mouth.

You should know that I don't care enough to go around reading some bull****ty book because you recommend it.

Then you shouldn't be making pronouncements about something you know absolutely nothing about.

Key word being in part, key pieces of information missing being what, exactly, they do...

Thagard explains this in the quotation. Again:

"But philosophy remains important to cognitive science because it deals with fundamtental topics that underlie the experimental and computational approaches to mind. Abstract issues such as the nature of representation and computation need not be addressed in the everyday practice of psychology or AI, but they inevitably arise when researchers think deeply about what they are doing. Philosophy also deals with general issues such as the relation of mind and body and with methodological issues such as the nature of explanations found in cognitive science"

Can't you read?

I've got the mental image of one of those annoying guys at work who hover over your shoulder when you're doing something useful, gives you the occasional big grin and a thumbs up, then says he helped in part...

No. It's not like that.

I did notice that the guy's bio you linked to is a compsci graduate as well, though.

Yes. That's the point. He's one of those people who is interested in what CS can contribute to the study of the human mind. Look at his list of publications and you will see what I mean.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
I already answered that question. They want to use the results of AI research to shed some light on the nature of the human mind.

Do they understand that the AIs are programmed, and they'd tell us as much about the human mind as a man could? AI isn't some magical sentient being, on some level it's told what it is doing and what to believe. Philosophers are seriously wasting time thinking AI will help shed light on the human mind?

Then you shouldn't be making pronouncements about something you know absolutely nothing about.

Perhaps that's so, but in some cases certain things are obviously wastes of time and don't require further looks...

Thagard explains this in the quotation. Again:

"But philosophy remains important to cognitive science because it deals with fundamtental topics that underlie the experimental and computational approaches to mind. Abstract issues such as the nature of representation and computation need not be addressed in the everyday practice of psychology or AI, but they inevitably arise when researchers think deeply about what they are doing. Philosophy also deals with general issues such as the relation of mind and body and with methodological issues such as the nature of explanations found in cognitive science"

Can't you read?

Can't you? I've already stated that the quote is totally useless -- he basically says philosophy is useful for the abstract issues. Which I don't see, and I don't buy, and I don't understand why. Repeating it isn't going to change that, you know.

[Asher]

The way I see AI is this:
Psychologists: Assist in the big picture -- how do sentient beings learn? How do people think?
Computer Scientists: Implementation of the concepts so a computer can compute it, effectively giving an AI.

I'm not sure where a philosopher fits in on this picture. It sounds to me like they're redundant, with Philosophy of Mind being comparable to psychology. Is that true?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Japher

I can agree that philosophy has the potential to assist in creating answers to some of the most perplexing problems of the day. Yet, how can they when they do not understand or are not aware of the problem? Similarly, how can science solve these problems without the philosophy's of science that were established so long ago? If philosophy is to continue to contribute as it has the past it needs to take a more active role in the fields it wishes to improve, and not stand to the side with an 'anti-medle' shield on.

Well, it doesn't stand to the side in the areas of philosophy which are concerned with the sciences, namely: Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Mind, Cognitive Science, Epistemology, etc.

How I am coming to see it:

Philosophy - "We have the potential to help you find the answers you are looking for"

Sciences - "Great, what's the answer?"

Philosophy - "What are you working on?"

Sciences - "I am working on determing the effects of carrier materials on the resistance of spores of Bacillos stearothermophilus to gaseous hydrogen peroxide in an attempt to better understand the methodoly of sterilization"

Philosophy - "huh? Can't you just ask a simple one, like how many stars are in the sky?"

An amusing misrepresentation. Philosophy of science is at a rather more abstract level like: what is the relation of theory to evidence? what is the exact nature of "cause" as it is used in science? Can the problem of induction be solved? What is science, is it a generic discipline or a series of loosely related disciplines? Can teleological concepts be used in a restrained manner in biology without compromising the non-teleological nature of modern science? etc.

[the last is a problem that is the shame of the sciences]

Yet, if science was to intervene with philosophy what would they acheive? The same scrutiny and pesimistic ideals that you are receiving from Asher and I.

Well, the move from Classical to Quantum physics inspired Thomas Kuhn to write "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" which changed the way many people think about science. Going the other way, radical behaviourism was inaugurated by empiricist worries about evidence.

What this says to me: Science can be productive and meaningful without philosophy. Yet, philosophy, as we know it today, would not exist without science and/or other fields.

Scientific discoveries can provide us with nice things like Playstations and cars and the like, but it can't provide us with incorrigible knowledge unless we have a firm foundation that explains why scientific explanation yields the truth and that is the province of the philosophy of science.

The Scientist/Philosopher is a title I see so much in the past, and barely any of today. Why is that? Is it because of the educational system or because of what philosophy has become?

Check out Thagard's CV which I linked to. He counts as a scientist/philosopher if anyone does.

[Asher]

Scientific discoveries can provide us with nice things like Playstations and cars and the like, but it can't provide us with incorrigible knowledge unless we have a firm foundation that explains why scientific explanation yields the truth and that is the province of the philosophy of science.

Do you really believe this? That Science can only create technology, and without philosophy can't give us anything more than that?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
The way I see AI is this:
Psychologists: Assist in the big picture -- how do sentient beings learn? How do people think?
Computer Scientists: Implementation of the concepts so a computer can compute it, effectively giving an AI.

I'm not sure where a philosopher fits in on this picture. It sounds to me like they're redundant, with Philosophy of Mind being comparable to psychology. Is that true?

No. Who asks the question, "What is thinking?" or "Can beliefs and desires be analysed on the normal causal model?" or "how do we account for the normative (rule following) features of rationality in materialist terms? What is representation? And surely we need to have an account of what thinking is, before we can investigate it, or how do we know what it is we are investigating.

The philosophers come in on the conceptual and conceptual consistency side of the enterprise, but they need not limit themselves to that if they are trained in either of the other two discipines. For example, many Cog Scientists think that mental states are representational states, but they probably don't have a general theory of representation (how could the scientific method discover one?) or even a defence of representationalism. Philosophers have thought about this sort of thing for years so they will weigh in and argue whether such a notion is self consistent or will do the job it promises to do (representational theories tend to invite scepticism).

Later.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Do you really believe this? That Science can only create technology, and without philosophy can't give us anything more than that?

Well, why do you think that scientific method can provide us with incorrigible knowledge of the nature of the universe? What are the fundamental grounds of science? How do you solve the problem of induction (without which science is a dead duck)?

[Agathon]

I'll leave you with the problem of induction. You see if you can solve it.

Scientific observations are usually of the form, "Whenever experiment X has been peformed (properly) in the past result y has obtained". These are used to justify general claims like, "Whenever experiment X is performed (properly) result y is obtained."

This inference requires the intermediate premise "the future will be like the past" in order to be logically valid.

So how can we prove that the future will be like the past? We can't say that it will because it has been in past experience because that commits the fallacy of begging the question (assuming the conclusion as a premise).

So do we take "the future will be like the past" on faith? In that case belief in science seems to be no more rational than belief in God.

Have fun.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
No. Who asks the question, "What is thinking?"

The ps command tells us what is thinking...

"Can beliefs and desires be analysed on the normal causal model?"

Normal causal model? Is this some fancy terminology for the incredibly basic concept of cause and effect?

"how do we account for the normative (rule following) features of rationality in materialist terms? What is representation? And surely we need to have an account of what thinking is, before we can investigate it, or how do we know what it is we are investigating.

No offence, but those sound like trivial, stupid questions that are only asked (and answered) by philosophers. Really, does it matter, other than "because it's interesting"?

Philosophers have thought about this sort of thing for years so they will weigh in and argue whether such a notion is self consistent or will do the job it promises to do (representational theories tend to invite scepticism).

I suppose it's kinda pointless to keep asking for clarification -- no matter how you word it I still eyeroll even when I try not to.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Well, why do you think that scientific method can provide us with incorrigible knowledge of the nature of the universe?

Why do you think that the limitations of a human mind can suddenly unravel the secrets of the universe?
Why do you think that philosophy can provide us with incorrigible knowledge of the nature of the universe?

What are the fundamental grounds of science?

Observation of the world around us.

How do you solve the problem of induction (without which science is a dead duck)?

Induction is only possible with faith in the real world...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'll leave you with the problem of induction. You see if you can solve it.

Scientific observations are usually of the form, "Whenever experiment X has been peformed (properly) in the past result y has obtained". These are used to justify general claims like, "Whenever experiment X is performed (properly) result y is obtained."

This inference requires the intermediate premise "the future will be like the past" in order to be logically valid.

So how can we prove that the future will be like the past?

You can't.

So do we take "the future will be like the past" on faith? In that case belief in science seems to be no more rational than belief in God.

Have fun.

Absolutely, when anyone tries to predict the future it relies on faith -- scientist or philosopher -- it doesn't matter.

What's your point?

Was this supposed to be profound or something?

[Peter Triggs]

I would disagree with this, none of the people studying AI have ever consulted or worked with a philosopher...

C'mon, Asher, a cursory glance through the American Association for Artificial Intelligence popped up:

CV FOR AARON SLOMAN
BSc Mathematics and Physics 1st class, Cape Town, 1956, DPhil in philosophy, Oxford 1962
Rhodes Scholar at Balliol College Oxford 1957-1960, Senior Scholar at St Antony's College 1960-62. GEC Professorial Fellow 1984-6. Elected Fellow of the American Association for AI in 1991. Elected honorary life Fellow of AISB in 1997. Elected Fellow of ECCAI in 1999. Regularly invited as keynote speaker at seminars, international conferences and workshops.

Taught philosophy at Hull then Sussex University for several years, but decided around 1970 that AI provided the best context for studying many old philosophical problems. Did battle with McCarthy and Hayes at IJCAI in 1971 (paper on non-logical representations reprinted in AI Journal 1971). After a year learning about AI in Edinburgh in 1972-3 as SRC senior visiting fellow returned to Sussex and later helped to found the School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, and wrote an influential book ``The Computer Revolution in Philosophy'' (1978).

Continued working on philosophy, on the architecture of visual systems, and tools for teaching and research in AI. Managed the development of Poplog, a sophisticated multi-language AI development environment (sold by ISL for several years, but now available free of charge, though still used in commercial products, e.g. Clementine.)

After 27 years at Sussex wanted a change. In 1991 moved to the School of Computer Science in the University of Birmingham, where he also collaborates with members of the School of Psychology. Still working on AI tools (e.g. the SIM_AGENT toolkit), hybrid architectures for intelligent agents, the evolution of consciousness, architectural support for motivation and emotions, issues concerned with representation, mathematical thinking, vision, and related philosophical problems in AI and computing.

Most of my recent papers can be found in the Cognition and Affect project directory at Birmingham http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/cogaff/

My software tools and much AI teaching material are accessible from the Free Poplog site: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/po...reepoplog.html
including the SimAgent toolkit http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/cogaff/simagent.html

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

No offence, but those sound like trivial, stupid questions that are only asked (and answered) by philosophers. Really, does it matter, other than "because it's interesting"?

What they sound like is neither here nor there, what they mean is something entirely different.