Re: Cool visual illusion


Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> "feedbackdroids" <feedbackdroids@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1133638799.972872.252830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Try to understand the list of 8 items, mentioned previously. Try to
> > understand that the items on the list above lead to the items below.
> > Try to understand that stopping at items #1 and #2 does not solve the
> > problem. Try to understand that to design and build a system, you have
> > to go through the entire process. Try to understand systems-level
> > problem solving.
>
> The problem is that you seem to fail to comprehend -- even though I pointed
> it out to you point-blank -- what that actually means. Neurology MIGHT come
> into play at items 4 and 5 on your list, when we get down to doing a
> specific implementation of intelligence. Since you claim that you have to
> go through the entire process, do you really want to claim that we've done
> 1 - 3 satisfactorily to enable us to undertake 4 and 5? Where do you think
> neurology can help us on items 1 - 3?
>


If you had been following the discussion, you would see that Wolf did
exactly what hard-core behaviorism would never do, and what philosophy
is incapable of doing. Which is to attempt to explain outward behavior
by "going inside" to look at internal mechanisms. This is not just
what, this relates to how. Where behaviorism ends, physiology begins.
Even Skinner realized and said as much.

The following comment is irrelevant ... do you really want to claim
that we've done 1 - 3 satisfactorily to enable us to undertake 4 and 5?
.... as both philosophy and behaviorism have about given us as much as
they likely ever will.

That's the real truth, however, in practice, the systems-level approach
continually works top and bottom, revising as it goes along. Anyone
who's actually designed anything, or written a non-trivial computer
program, knows top-down and bottom-up are 2 sides to the same coin.
However, most of the work always comes in at the lower levels in the
process.




> I have argued that neurology is not going to be that useful in doing steps
> 1 - 3 as even things like behaviourism are for reasons that should be clear
> to anyone who actually works with computers.


You're just arguing which bits and pieces are more important. Sorry,
dude, they're all important in their proper place. [see comment above
about programming]. Systems-level thinking is a total process.




It is extremely difficult to
> discover algorithms by studying a particular implementation of them. And,
> usually, it isn't necessary, since studying what the system does -- this
> would be the behaviourist view -- is usually superior to trying to decipher
> the implementation. Moreover, if you do so you'll likely copy the bugs as
> well -- biologically introduced illusions, for example -- which surely isn't
> what we want. So, while neurology will give us SOME useful implementation
> and design details, it is not required to create AI ... and so is not as
> important as you make it out to be.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cool visual illusion
    ... Try to understand that to design and build a system, ... > exactly what hard-core behaviorism would never do, ... take longer than writing up designs, but most of the brain work is in the ... Systems-level thinking is a total process. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Cool visual illusion
    ... >> exactly what hard-core behaviorism would never do, ... there's no reason to think that philosophy cannot "go inside" to look ... > take longer than writing up designs, but most of the brain work is in the ... And once you have the algorithm, all of the design methods get ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)