Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- From: lesterDELzick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Lester Zick)
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:14:05 GMT
On 26 Apr 2006 09:21:22 -0700, "feedbackdroids"
<feedbackdroids@xxxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
<feedbackdroids@xxxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/crick04/crick04_index.html
================
He had very little patience with orthodox philosophers. He felt they
became too prematurely trapped in matters of terminology. I am reminded
of a seminar on consciousness he gave at the Salk in the eighties. A
philosopher-whose name politeness forbids me from mentioning-raised
his hand and said "But Dr Crick ... you are attempting to solve the
so-called problem of consciousness yet you haven't even bothered to
define it...can you clearly define what you are talking about?" Crick's
reply: "My dear chap, there was never a time in the pre-DNA era when a
lot of us biologists sat around the table and said 'Let us first
clearly define life before we explore it'. We just went out there,
forged ahead and found out what it was. It's no doubt good to have a
rough idea of what one is talking about but matters of terminology are
best left to philosophers who spend most of their time on such things.
Indeed clear definitions often emerge from empirical research. We now
no longer quibble over questions like is a virus really alive".
Semantic hygiene, Crick felt, was largely a waste of time.
===============
The obvious implication of Crick's comment is that, if we wait before
everything is completely defined before we start work on something,
then we'll all be ghosts before we ever lift a finger.
Whereas if we just steal the results of others we won't have to wait
quite as long.
Science works because people have journals/books/etc to publish their
work in, and so others can see it, and not have to re-invent the wheel
for themselves.
Especially when the cooperation is involuntary.
Science is a collaboration.
So where is your contribution?
Crick's important point was "... We just went out there, forged ahead
and found out what it was.
Using the results of others.
It's no doubt good to have a rough idea of
what one is talking about
No kidding? I can't imagine why. Especially when it's an even better
idea to have a rough idea of what others are talking about. Einstein
used a similar approach.
but matters of terminology are best left to
philosophers who spend most of their time on such things.
Maybe that's why you spend so much time on philosophy and so little on
science.
Indeed clear
definitions often emerge from empirical research...".
Unfortunately no clear definitions have emerged from your empirical
research. AI is to science as KP is to the Army. And those without
demonstrable professional skills usually wind up in one or the other.
~v~~
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- From: feedbackdroids
- Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- References:
- Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- From: feedbackdroids
- Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- From: feedbackdroids
- Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- From: feedbackdroids
- Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- From: feedbackdroids
- Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- From: feedbackdroids
- Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- Prev by Date: Re: Defining symbolic AI, what it really is and what it's not?
- Next by Date: Re: Defining symbolic AI, what it really is and what it's not?
- Previous by thread: Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- Next by thread: Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|