I completely disagree, Beyond learning and building knowledge, AI also
includes transcendental aspects of consciousness and self (soul?), which
are
in metaphysics. Do you really think there is an E=mC^2 equation for that?
AI also covers the creation and appreciation of beautiful things, which is
in the 3rd pillar of philosophy: esthetics. So, I believe AI touches on
nearly all aspects of philosophy. Moreover, (reverse) engineering will
not
solve the problem and may actually lead to many dead ends by just finding
ways to go nowhere quicker and better. It will take a new theory and
philosophy to do it.
Think of it like trying to empirically come up with QED or Relativity w/o
any new theory or philosophy of physics.
"©uæMuæPaProlij" <1234567@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:gfs0lv$bvq$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>> I'm an engineer, not a philosopher. As such, nearly everything you
write
>> strikes me as silly and odd and misguided. I hardly know where to
begin
>> to
>> comment.
>>
>> I find this sort of philosophical debate to be a pointless and endless
>> game
>> at trying to define, and redefine words to make them fit together in a
>> more
>> pleasing way. You can't solve AI by playing with words. You have to
do
>> it
>> using empirical evidence. It's not a problem which can be solved by
pure
>> philosophy.
>>
>
> I agree with you. Creating AI has nothing to do with philosophy. It is
> just a technical problem that needs better mathematical tools in order
to
> solve it.
>
> Creating AI will reflect on philosophy in only one way - it will prove
> that some philosophers were wrong.
>
|
