Here is my 2nd installment of many critiques of this paper. Not all issues
will
resonate will everyone so pick and choose what you find interesting to
debate pro/con
and I will defend any of my comments.
I will post the paragraph(s) I have a comment about, and highlight the
particular words at issue by enclosing them between "***" characters.
I'll
also include citations in the paper when helpful. I seek (intelligent and
informed) technical/theoretical critique or feedback from anyone on this
particular issue.
See page 11, line 20 of his paper where it says:
"I agree that it is time for a positive account of Heideggerian AI and of
an
underlying Heideggerian neuroscience, but I think Wheeler is the one
looking
in the wrong place. Merely by supposing that Heidegger is concerned with
problem solving and action oriented representations, Wheeler's project
reflects not a step beyond Agre but a regression to aspects of pre-Brooks
GOFAI. Heidegger, indeed, claims that that skillful coping is basic, but
he
is also clear that, all coping takes place on the background coping he
calls
being-in-the-world that doesn't involve any form of representation at all.
see: Michael Wheeler, Reconstructing the Cognitive World, 222-223.
Wheeler's cognitivist misreading of Heidegger leads him to overestimate
the
im****tance of Andy Clark's and David Chalmers' attempt to free us from the
Cartesian idea that the mind is essentially inner by pointing out that in
thinking we sometimes make use of external artifacts like pencil, paper,
and
computers.[i] Unfortunately, this argument for the extended mind
preserves
the Cartesian assumption that our basic way of relating to the world is by
using propositional representations such as beliefs and memories whether
they are in the mind or in notebooks in the world. In effect, while
Brooks
happily dispenses with representations where coping is concerned, all
Chalmers, Clark, and Wheeler give us as a supposedly radical new
Heideggerian approach to the human way of being in the world is to note
that
memories and beliefs are not necessarily inner entities and that,
***therefore, thinking bridges the distinction between inner and outer
representations.*** "
My Critique:
"Assuming that by "thinking" you mean conscious thought, I cannot see how
thinking is a bridge that necessarily follows from memories/beliefs not
being solely inner entities. It seems to me that inner and outer
representations can be bridged without thought. Isn't this what occurs in
an unconscious (reflex) reaction to a complex external even, which is an
automatic bridge and generates a thoughtful, usually accurate response but
often before we even have a chance to think about it. Inner/outer
representations seems semantically vague here. Also, cannot conscious
thought can endeavor itself with in purely inner or out representations
without ever bridging them? I guess, it is the "therefore" that gives me
pause here."
Any thoughts on this issue?
Ariel B.
"Alpha" <omegazero2003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:f8636636-6ee8-4c92-9905-a89145bc06b2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nov 14, 9:46 pm, "Isaac" <gro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> All,
>>
>> I have critiqued in great detail a recent write paper by Prof. Hubert
>> Dreyfus entitled "Why Heideggerian AI Failed and how Fixing it would
>> Require
>> making it more Heideggerian" . I can email a copy of it to whom ever is
>> interested.
>
>Please send a copy to omegazero2003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ariel. Thanks!
>
>Why don't you post a summary of that paper and your key critique
>points here.
>
>
>
>
>> For his bio, see:http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/
>>
>> I want to stimulate discussion on this topic by posting my critiques
>> little
>> by little and getting comments from the AI community on the news
groups.
>> However, before I start I want to get a feel for how many know of his
>> work
>> and/or would be interested in an intellectual debate for and against
his
>> many anti-AI positions.
>>
>> I hope many will respond to this posting with interest so I can begin
>> posting each part of this paper I find issues with and my reasoned
>> critique
>> for others to comment on.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ariel-
|
