I think that was a good idea, which I should have done sooner. OK, here is
a very rough summary of Dreyfus' thesis in this paper:
In summ: Dryfus's paper is not really talking about consciousness, he is
talking about the architecture of low level brain circuits that do or do
not
make distinctions (e.g., representations) between "us" and phenomenon. He
roughly says our brain circuits engage phenomenon by melding with it and
becoming a mirror image such that the two are not separable, thus no
representations of the object or modules or hierarchy in the brain (which
he
asserts is what brings the downfall of Brooks, Minsky, and the like) just
a
bunch of flat, organically melded dominoes that hit one to another like
"reality" would. He says that the "representation" approach/architecture
is
of Heidegger's philosophy, and hence forth Heideggerian AI, and the
non-representation approach/architecture is espoused by Merleau-Ponty,
Walter Freeman. He particularly hangs his hat of Walter Freeman's
neurodynamic model as the solution to AI; i.e., a chaotic, flat, neural
network approach.
Here are a couple good quotes to summ up his Thesis:
"... there are now at least three versions of supposedly Heideggerian AI
that might be thought of as articulating a new paradigm for the field:
Rodney Brooks' behaviorist approach at MIT, Phil Agre's pragmatist model,
and Walter Freeman's neurodynamic model. All three approaches implicitly
accept Heidegger's critique of Cartesian internalist representations, and,
embrace John Haugeland's slogan that cognition is embedded and
embodied.[i]
..... Later I'll suggest that Walter Freeman's neurodynamics offers a
radically new basis for a Heideggerian approach to human intelligence-an
approach compatible with physics and grounded in the neuroscience of
perception and action. But first we need to examine another approach to AI
contem****aneous with Brooks' that actually calls itself Heideggerian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] John Haugeland, "Mind Embodied and Embedded," Having Thought: Essays
in
the Metaphysics of Mind, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998),
218."
I hope this helps frame the issues and my critiques better for those who
understandably do not have time to read his paper.
Cheers,
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-
|
