Batali%MIT-OZ@sri-unix.UUCP (06/29/83)
From: John Batali <Batali@MIT-OZ>
[Reprinted from the Phil-Sci discussion.]
[...]
We aren't in the same position in AI as early physicists were.
Physics started out with a more or less common and very roughly
accurate conception of the physical world. People understood that
things fell, that bigger things hurt more when they fell on you and so
on. Physics was able to proceed to sharpen up the pre-theoretic
understanding people had of the world until very recently when its
discoveries ceased to be simply sharpenings and began to seem to be
contradictions.
"Mind studies" (AI, psychology, philosophy, and so on) don't seem to
have such a common, roughly correct, theory to start with. We don't
even agree on what it is we are supposed to be explaining, how such
explanations ought to go, or what constitutes success.
[John Batali <Batali@MIT-OZ>]KDF%MIT-OZ@sri-unix.UUCP (06/29/83)
This message is empty.