[ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

>> So what have philosophers got to stack up against these gargantuan
>> philosophical discoveries made by non-philosophers?
>>
>
> >As soon as I say something you will say it is not philosophy. Formal
> logic, decision theory, foundations of mathematics... you will quickly say
> that wasn't philosophy
>

No I think those disciplines can and have contributed to philosophy, but it
wasn't done by philosophers. By philosophers I mean those who are ignorant
of modern developments in science and mathematics because they think it
unimportant in philosophy and engage in ancestor worship for the ancient
Greeks, Leibniz and a few 19th century philosophers. Mortimer J. Adler
would be a good example of this sort of person, a very famous philosopher
who nevertheless discovered absolutely nothing new in philosophy.

A few years ago I was kicked off a mailing list about Objectivism because I
dared to suggest that in addition to the birth of Ayn Rand there might have
been other things that happened in the last century, liked Quantum
Mechanics and the work of Einstein and Godel and Turing, that might have
some relevance to philosophy,

 > It is a bit like robotics and AI: as soon as it starts working, it gets
> called automation.
>


Some truth in that. In philosophy you try to find the correct questions to
ask, after that it's passed over to science where they try to find the
answers, but to do either you can't ignore what's happened in the last few
centuries.

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20141003/cfd5d8c8/attachment.html>