14.11.2012 Views

2. Philosophy - Stefano Franchi

2. Philosophy - Stefano Franchi

2. Philosophy - Stefano Franchi

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

136<br />

P HILOSOPHY, NON-PHILOSOPHY, AND SCIENCE<br />

that the analysis cannot lead anywhere, that it cannot certainly bring about any truth, and<br />

that it is not worth bothering with. John McCarthy, for example, dismisses the three most<br />

famous critiques of Artificial Intelligence provided by Hubert Dreyfus, Joseph Weizen-<br />

baum, and John Searle as “ideological” oppositions, by noting:<br />

AI has some ideological opponents. Some think it impossible in principle,<br />

although none of them has attempted an actual mathematical argument. 11<br />

Similar arguments are employed by Marvin Minsky, although in a different setting. He<br />

goes through several “common sense” objections to the impossibility of truly intelligent<br />

machine (“Humans are creative—computers can only repeat instructions,” or “Computers<br />

can apply pre-given problem solving strategies—humans find new ones,” etc.) and every<br />

time explains that the supposed “critique” is just an expression of ignorance that has been<br />

reified into a presumptive superiority of human beings. For example, on the issue of cre-<br />

ativity, he says:<br />

I do not blame anyone for not being able to explain [creativity]. I do object<br />

to the idea that, just because we can’t explain it now, then no one ever<br />

could imagine how creativity works.<br />

Perhaps our superstitions about creativity serve some other needs, such as<br />

supplying us with heroes with such special qualities that, somehow, our deficiencies<br />

seem more excusable. 12<br />

AI’s complaint about being treated “unfairly” because of ideological presupposition is not<br />

totally ungrounded. A few comments are necessary, though, in order to understand better<br />

what is at stake.<br />

First of all, it should remembered that Artificial Intelligence itself has employed, and<br />

all too successfully, the same strategy in the past. In the early 1960s a major funding war<br />

erupted between two competing paradigms striving to assert themselves as the correct ap-<br />

proach to the computational study of higher cognitive faculties: the older discipline of cy-<br />

11. John McCarthy, “AI Needs a Basic Research Document”, available at URL://sail.stanford.edu/pub/airesearch/basic.html.<br />

See also John McCarthy, “AI Needs more Emphasis on Basic Research,” AI Magazine,<br />

1983.<br />

1<strong>2.</strong> Marvin Minsky, “Why People Think Computers Can’t,” AI Magazine, 3, 4, Fall 198<strong>2.</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!