I have recieve the paper and read about 11 pages of it
and skimmed the rest. It's quite dense. I won't be able
to get a good feel for several days because I come home
quite tired.
Based upon the conculsion I wonder why Stevan
Harnad's Total Turing Test wasn't mentioned.
I remeber reading "What Computers Can't Do"
in the early '70s, maybe '72 when it came out.
I don't remember much of the book any more.
I should read it again. It set the stage for
my reading 1980 reading of John Searle's
article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
Still, He's come quite a ways to make the
statement:
We can, however, make some progress towards animal AI.
So many of us have our reasons to doubt computers
(as currently constructed and envisioned) will be able
to cheaply simulate situated human coping but each
has his or her own reason.
I am encouraged by this paragraph:
So, according to the view I have been presenting,
even if the Heideggerian/Merleau-Pontian approach
to AI suggested by Freeman is ontologically sound
in a way that GOFAI and subsequent supposedly
Heideggerian models proposed by Brooks, Agre, and
Wheeler are not, a neurodynamic computer model
would still have to be given a detailed description of
a body and motivations like ours if things were to
count as significant for it so that it could learn to act
intelligently in our world. We have seen that Heidegger,
Merleau-Ponty, and Freeman offer us hints of the elaborate
and subtle body and brain structures we would have to
model and how to model some of them, but this only
makes the task of a Heideggerian AI seem all the more
difficult and casts doubt on whether we will ever be able
to accomplish it.
Even if not intended he shows the way. Still, digital systems
in digital worlds are subject to latching where analog systems
in analog worlds would not. As long as the designed system
is representational, even if of the system being modelled, it
is GOFAI all the way down.
I believe your sentence parsing for the sentence starting page 11
line 33 is incorrect in that Dryfus is attributing a conclusion to
Chalmers, Clark, and Wheeler rather than making one himself.
See the next paragraph to see why I believe so.
|
