Home Original page

AI and cognitive psychology rant (getting more and more OT - tell me if I should shut up)

Michele Simionato mis6 at pitt.edu
Sun Nov 2 05:37:16 EST 2003 
Stephen Horne <steve at ninereeds.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4e19qvkc9n861i9falj6r8c5v4ou40acl8 at 4ax.com>...
> I have just been through the same point (ad nauseum) in an e-mail
> discussion. Yet I can't see what is controversial about my words.
> Current theory is abstract (relative to what we can percieve) and we
> simply don't have the right vocabulary (both in language, and within
> the mind) to represent the concepts involved. We can invent words to
> solve the language problem, of course, but at some point we have to
> explain what the new words mean.
> 
> Thus, as I said, "most current theory is so abstract that the
> explanations should be taken as metaphors rather than reality anyway."
> 
> The point being that different metaphors may equally have been chosen
> to explain the same models - presumably emphasising different aspects
> of them - and such explanations may work better for people who can't
> connect with the existing explanations. The model would still be the
> same, though, just as it remains the same even if you describe it in a
> language other than English. The terminology changes, but not the
> model.
> 
> Read very carefully, and you will note that I said the EXPLANATIONS
> should be taken as metaphors - NOT the models themselves.

Dunno who was "attacking" you via e-mail, but FWIW, I fully support
your point of view and I am sure a lot of other people in science
would agree. The time where one could have a fully intuitive or
visual understanding of physical models is long past.

Nice discussion, BTW.

                      Michele
More information about the Python-list mailing list