Re: exhaustive definition in the life sciences - an oxymoron?

On 29 Dec 2005 14:12:38 -0800, "feedbackdroids"
<feedbackdroids@xxxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On 29 Dec 2005 11:50:57 -0800, "feedbackdroids"
>> <feedbackdroids@xxxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> >Biology is an experimental science. Despite all your circumnavigations,
>> >> >this still hasn't seemed to have sunk in.
>> >>
>> >> Sure. But only because you don't have a clue which despite all your
>> >> circumlocutions (not circumnavigations which what Magellan's ship did)
>> >> still doesn't seem to have sunk in. However I'm confident you already
>> >> have your next excuse for failure in ai ready.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Failure in AI? :):):). What's your big problem? You think a definition
>> >is a magic wand? I'm just a lowly squib, trying to learn something
>> >useful. Filter the wheat from the chaff, as they say. But I must be
>> >doing something right, since I get the same verbal responses from both
>> >extremist ends of the spectrum.
>>
>> And you keep changing the subject, Dan.
>
>
>DOH. You brought up the term ... failure in ai. My interest in AI has
>nothing whatsoever to do with your definitions. Learn something here

Learn what? That you confuse robotics with intelligence? That
academics are partisan hacks? Hot flash!

>http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ArtificialIntelligence/
>
>
>
>You go from claiming
>> that consciousness is not the subject of ai. Hell, I'd settle for a
>> little intelligence for a change. My problem is you want to assign
>> consciousness to everything alive without being able to define the
>> term. When I ask what consciousness means you say its scalable.
>> Then when I propose an exhaustive definition first you say an
>> exhaustive definition is not possible. Then when I show how it is
>> possible you say it's too narrow. Then I say okay define it in terms
>> of things an organism is conscious of. Then you call me an extremist.
>> I get a little tired of people who use categorical Aristotelian logic
>> to defend their inability to say exactly what they're talking about.
>> You want to build robots go ahead that kinda act like animals? Just
>> don't talk to me about consciousness, sentience, intelligence or
>> anything else you can't exhaustively define.
>>
>> By the way, Dan, your posts are being double posted a lot.
>>
>> >I hold out no hope whatsover that anyone will invent a "conscious"
>> >robot in my lifetime, and AFAIAC, it's totally IRRELEVANT. A
>> >philosophical word-game, not a practical matter. There are many more
>> >realistic things to work on in the foreseeble future .... eg,
>>
>> Yadayada whatever. You're the one who started talking about
>> consciousness in organisms as scalable. So don't blame me that
>> you backed into a pickle you couldn't explain or define. Most people
>> seem to think they can just deny whatever they please without defining
>> what they're denying. That includes both you and the behaviorists.
>> It's called philosophy not science and I'm not the one doing it.
>>
>> >http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/robot.papers/2000/puddle.html
>> >
>> >================
>> >The first widely usable products will be guidance systems for
>> >industrial transport and cleaning machines that three-dimensionally map
>> >
>> >and competently navigate unfamiliar spaces, and can be quickly taught
>> >new routes by ordinary workers. I have been developing programs that do
>> >
>> >this. They need about a billion calculations per second, like the
>> >brainpower of a guppy! Industrial machines will be followed by
>> >mass-marketed utility robots for homes. The first may be a small, very
>> >autonomous robot vacuum cleaner that maps a residence, plans its own
>> >routes and schedules, keeps itself charged and empties its dustbag when
>> >
>> >necessary into a larger container. Larger machines with manipulator
>> >arms and the ability to perform several different tasks may follow,
>> >culminating eventually in human-scale "universal" robots that can run
>> >application programs for most simple chores. Their
>> >10-billion-calculation-per-second lizard-scale minds would execute
>> >application programs with reptilian inflexibility.
>> >==============
>> >
>>
>>
>> ~v~~
>


~v~~

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: exhaustive definition in the life sciences - an oxymoron?
    ... >>> circumlocutions ... > that consciousness is not the subject of ai. ... > exhaustive definition is not possible. ... >>mass-marketed utility robots for homes. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: exhaustive definition in the life sciences - an oxymoron?
    ... >>Lester Zick wrote: ... >>> No it means I prefer having an exhaustive definition for something ... > define consciousness the definition is exhaustive because it allows us ... > As far as the forty scientists are concerned I imagine they're just ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: exhaustive definition in the life sciences - an oxymoron?
    ... >> No it means I prefer having an exhaustive definition for something ... define consciousness the definition is exhaustive because it allows us ... As far as the forty scientists are concerned I imagine they're just ... If forty different scientists defined your Aunt Fanny forty different ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Intelligence - one of degree?
    ... >>It's the same problem as classifying animals taxonomically. ... > conscious except you own opinions on the subject of consciousness. ... >>> consciousness no unless you have an exhaustive definition to begin ... Life science is not an exact science. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution
    ... A robot with an artificial but still ... had no conscious experiences.> ... terms of node interactions following the laws of physics. ... refuses to use the term "consciousness" they have to implicitly ...
    (talk.origins)