<forbisgaryg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:36705361-5c01-4d0f-87f8-70ae94e7c9ab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You can send me the paper.
Done. It should be in your inbox by now.
>I was impressed by
> Dreyfus decades ago. Since I find myself untrainable
> within the University environment I have many weak
> spots. This being said, I have participated in the
> c.a.p forum since its splt form c.a so as to move
> the Searle chatter out of c.a.
great, then you may be bent towards sticking up for him. Of course, most
in
the AI community would not. So, any counter balance is very needed.
>
> While traditional Representationalism is unlikely
> to be true it seem just as unlikely thinking bridges
> any gaps. I think I agree with you on this point.
>
> I suspect we are like the blind men describing
> an elephant. We seem to argue over descriptions
> rather than trying to integrate them into a cohesive
> whole. I'm as guilty as the next.
>
Yes, that is why getting the philosophy and theory strait is an im****tant
first step in the right direction.
> Most of us are much harder on papers when we
> disagree with their conclusions than when we
> agree with them.
I'm just as hard either way. I don't let anyone agree with me unless they
do it with the right rational, and can strongly defend it against my
strong
ability to play the devil's advocate.
>Are you sure you came to the
> table clean?
I did. Actually, I tend to agree with some architectural implications of
his philosophy, however, I believe his reasoning is very flawed so I
critique it at every step.
>
> I tend to shut down as soon as I reach an unsup****ted
> claim with which I disagree. It doesn't really matter
> that much what conclusion is reached. This has really
> interfered with my reading of technical papers. On the
> other hand I can accept hypotheticals I strongly suspect
> are false.
I understand how that feels. I can stick with it if they give strong
reasoning and/or plausible evidence. I tune out when there is too much
hand
waving.
>Is the paper presented as a series of conclusions
> one must accept as true or as alternatives to be considered?
No, he does do a reasonably good job at grounding it; however, when he
does
make (many) broad conclusions, I believe he jumps too far. So, I'd give
him
a C+ on this count, where most, if not nearly all, philosophers would give
a
D- on a practicality rating scale.
Thanks for your input,
Ariel-
|
