Re: Some Philosophy of Science speak (Re: Some 3-D Trig)
me...@meow.dom
"Since 9-11, we have increasingly embraced at the highest official
level a paranoiac view of the world. Summarized in a phrase repeatedly
used at the highest level,
"he who is not with us is against us."
I strongly suspect the person who uses that phrase doesn't know its
historical or intellectual origins.
It is a phrase popularized by Lenin (Applause)
when he attacked the social democrats on the grounds that they were
anti-Bolshevik and therefore he who is not with us is against us
and can be handled accordingly."
--- Zbigniew Brzezinski
====================== Quote End ========================
In article <fa69ae35.03071...@posting.google.com>,
er...@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote:
>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<y1suPrA+zzC$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>...
>> he's trying to educate you Eray. It's pretty obvious to a lot of folk
>> other than yourself that you need to be brought down a peg or two, and
>> you need to show a little more respect.
>>
>
>Yes, very good style of education. Then I think everybody here
>including you is educational to everybody else.
>
>His flamery lowered the level to alt.warez.kids
>
>> I think Larry was pointing out that you retreat into the worst type of
>> obfuscation when challenged rather than accept that your position is
>> empirically rather tenuous. It simply isn't a matter of *arguing*. You
>> can use logic once you have some decent empirical premises, but sadly
>> you don't - in fact, instead of being receptive to the research
>> programmes which can and do generate such data, you dismiss it as
>> pseudo-science.
>
>I don't dismiss research programmes, but I will dismiss people who
>will claim that behaviorism is the correct philosophy of mind. It
>isn't.
>
>We don't need to collect data from behavior of animals and human test
>subjects. We (AI people) are doing computer science,
Well, about the only thing I see you "doing"
is mental masturbation
and nazi propaganda.
>not psychology or sociology.
>Do you think we collect data from people when we are designing an
>algorithm for finding hypergraph transversals? We don't. Likewise for
>AI algorithms.
Cause you are clueless.
First, you'd have to define the scope and domain
of "ai" and its PURPOSE.
Then...
Then my shredder would be happy to shred it to dust
at the rate of about 10 pages a second.
>Besides, what kind of data do you think would be useful to us?
Who is "us"?
>Humans
>are probably only necessary for us to observe the sorts of mental
>facilities that are present in them.
Jesus Funken Christ.
What is gonna ona here?
Is it the end of the world?
A global madness?
Enough.
> *And* to do the research :)
>External observation can provide a limited range of data that can be
>useful to us. Like training an auto-pilot. And even then that data is
>not at the heart of our work, it is just data. The real stuff we make
>is algorithms and mathematical models.
>
>Maybe you are missing the point but you come up with a model first, it
>doesn't have to depend on an experiment with animals. But let's see.
>The behavior you observe should coincide with whatever theory is
>proposed. So the data an experimental psychologist collects could be
>used for such verification purposes. That we do, too. You don't think
>AI people totally disregard the real world, do you?
>
>Of course the more relevant portions of psychology are those that are
>not behaviorist because we need theories not a loose set of
>experiments. Actually, Freud's views have a lot more explanatory power
>for us than yours. There are also great works on the psychology of
>animals and children it seems.
>
>However, note that we don't only try to achieve animal or human
>intelligence. We also try to understand the principles of "universal"
>intelligence. Such models do not necessarily fit with animalistic
>theories.
>
>> If the philosophy of science is to become naturalized epistemology, then
>> discussion of the principles and data produced by approaches such as
>> Operant Conditioning are critically important to this newsgroup.
>
>Maybe you would like to argue again that AI, philosophy of mind,
>linguistics, normal psychology are all invalid, and only a branch of
>psychology called behaviorist psychology is valid because you *think*
>Quine says so. That's a great argument. I laugh every time I read it.
>
>It's amusing you are saying this. You yourself is the person who is
>trying to dismiss the entire AI field as "just engineering". Another
>anti-AI bunny. This anti-AI bunny thinks only behaviorist psychology
>and neuroscience makes sense, the other fields related to the
>inter-disciplinary study called Cognitive Sciences makes no sense. But
>the anti-AI bunny's battery is cheap, writes Skinner on top of it.
>
>The AI guy on the other hand says "behaviorist psychology" surely
>produces scientific results which are to be commended (among others
>that are crap like in most fields), but the so-called philosophy of
>"behaviorism" is not to be taken seriously. It is often the case that
>good experiments, theories, etc. might be claimed to depend on a false
>philosophy. Such is your field. It's not pseudo-science. But you have
>the wrong philosophical foundation, and you do not understand which
>foundation is implied by what you say. Neil was right.
>
>BTW, were you the person who said "AI term isn't used in academic
>circles any more it's split into Decision Sciences and Mimetic
>Sciences"? I will have another good laugh if you did.
>
>__
>Eray
====================== Quote Begin ======================
"This administration is doing everything we can
to end the stalemate in an efficient way.
We're making the right decisions to bring the solution to an end."
--- Adolph Bush,
Washington, D.C., April 10, 2001
====================== Quote End ========================
Librarian
like 1978's stamp honoring Abraham Stern
[Scott Standard Postage Stamp Catalogue #692],
and 1991's stamps honoring Lehi (also called "The Stern Gang",
led at one time by future Prime Minister Begin)
and Etzel (also called "The Irgun", led at one time by future
Prime Minister Shamir) [Scott #1099, 1100].
In article <d690a633.03071...@posting.google.com>,
trewth...@yahoo.com (Trewth Seeker) wrote:
>David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<hsS6pUAFvaC$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <fa69ae35.03070...@posting.google.com>, Eray
>> Ozkural exa <er...@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
>> >David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<3XwPHoAO2RC$EwC
>> >6...@longley.demon.co.uk>...
>> >>
>> >> "Pursuit of Truth"
>> >> "From Stimulus to Science"
>> >>
>> >> Both Harvard Press.
>> >
>> >How do you know Steve Waltz referred to the above theories? Do you
>> >seriously think those constitute the only philosophical treatment of
>> >the subject? Let me tell you: they are not.
>>
>> The above, like your earlier post, is just bizarre.
>
>That you think so shows what a weak grasp you have of the subjects
>Quine discusses. Rickert asked Walz for references pertaining to the
>"Theory of Science" that he was talking about. The notion
>that Quine's books pertain to *that* is downright Platonic.
Pathetic that is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do remain confident in Linda.
She'll make a fine labor secretary.
From what I've read in the press accounts,
she's perfectly qualified."
--- Adolph Bush,
Austin, Texas, Jan. 8, 2001