rjc@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) (11/30/88)
In article <1985@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: >On the contrary, most AIers believe the assertion that logic encapulates >the rules of thought, Mr Cockton, ou really shouldn't make such statments without being able to back them up. Pure polemic. Now, many Ai people would agree that some logics are ( to the best of our current knowledge ) good models of very small parts of human reasonning. That is a far cry from the sort of ridiculous claim you are trying to acribe, which I doubt anyone who has ever taken a logic course could hold. BTW, which logic, you might at least cut out the waffle to the extent of saying wht you mean, rather than firing these vague broadsides. >and that all sentences can be given a semantics in formal logic Depends what you mean by a "semantics" doesn't it, once again you are making vague meaningless accusations this will convince no one. Come on, you often make very valuable points ( eg about the importance of social inteaction to intelligence), don't spoil it by introducing such nonsence. >Anyone who talks of computers "understanding" does so: > > a) to patronise users whom they don't know how to instruct properly; > b) because they are AI types. c) because they have failed to grasp the difference between a computer and a computer system executing a program. -- rjc@uk.ac.ed.aipna AKA rjc%uk.ac.ed.aipna@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk "We must retain the ability to strike deep into the heart of Edinburgh" - MoD -- rjc@uk.ac.ed.aipna AKA rjc%uk.ac.ed.aipna@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk "We must retain the ability to strike deep into the heart of Edinburgh" - MoD