ice@trwrba.UUCP (04/21/86)
In article <547@faron.UUCP> rubenk@faron.UUCP (Ruben J. Kleiman) writes: >In article <3500011@uiucdcsp> bsmith@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >> >>You are probably correct in your belief that Wittgenstein is closer to >>the truth than most current natural language programming. I also believe >>it is impossible to go through Wittgenstein with a fine enough toothed >>comb. However, there are a couple of things to say. First, it is >>patently easier to implement a computer model based on 2-valued logic. >>The Investigations have not yet found a universally acceptable >>interpretation (or anything close, for that matter). To try to implement >>the theories contained within would be a monumental task. Second, in >>general it seems that much AI programming starts as an attempt to >>codify a cognitive model. However, considering such things as grant >>money and egos, when the system runs into trouble, an engineering-type >>solution (ie, make it work) is usually chosen. The fact that progress >>in AI is slow, and that the great philosophical theories have not yet >>found their way into the "state of the art," is not surprising. But >>give it time--philosophers have been working hard at it for 2500 years! >> >>Barry Smith > > >Whoever believes that "engineering-type solution[s]" are the consequence >of small grants or large egos: > > 1. should be able to conceive of an implementation of some concept (or the > concept of an implementation) which does not involve > "engineering-type solutions." > > 2. should NOT be able to give form to the notion of a "lag" > between research ("great philosophical theories") and > implementation ("state of the art"). > >- Ruben "Should?" -- But then there you are! We're not in "should"-land, we're (unfortunately?) in The Real World. What people Should be able to conceive is one thing; what they DO conceive is another (often babies :-) ). Forgive the poor brute engineers -- their efforts may not be as elegant, since they cannot leave messy details to the reader, but are hopefully sufficient to justify the expenditure on the project. As for #2, I respectfully refuse to accept ANYONE telling me that I should not be able to give form to ANY NOTION IN THE UNIVERSE!!! I agree that much engineering is done with little original thought, but unfortunately, implementation ("state of the art") is not the trivial detail many theorists believe! It is therefore a GOOD IDEA to give form to the notions of COST and SCHEDULE(read "lag") to research ("great philosophical theories") AND its implementation ("state of the art"). I'm all for more research implementation, but let's make it cost-effective -- we'll get more for our money. -Doug Ice.