From: Stuart R Elden <Stuart.Elden-AT-brunel.ac.uk> Subject: Re: WhatAboutDreyfus? Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:53:33 +0100 (BST) Sorry - what you say is correct but it is what I intended to say. To clarify:- AI might enable us to get computers to think how they (ie AI proponents) think we think (ie rule based calculation), but not how H/D argues we think (ie the activity of Dasein). Perhaps I was trying to be too clever in using four 'thinks' in one sentence - with implied different meanings. Your reading of me would only be correct if how AI thinks we think is the way Dasein thinks. It clearly isn't. Sorry for the confusion - hopefully this clears it up Stuart On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 06:54:21 -0700 Mike Staples <mstaples-AT-argusqa.com> wrote: > Stuart R Elden wrote: > > > I take Dreyfus > > to be suggesting that AI might enable us to get computers to think how > > they > > think we think, but not how H/D argues we think. > > Stuart, I'm not sure what you said here. I may be misreading you. Sounds > like you are saying that Dreyfus is suggesting that AI miht enable us to > get computers to "think" at all..."think" meaning think the way Dasein > thinks. If this is the case, then you are indeed wrong on this point. > Dreyfus has built his entire career around the proposition that > computers don't think, and may never think. Of course saying this > entails a lot of discussion about what thinking is, but Dreyfus defines > what computers currently do (rule-based calculation) as something > entirely different than what people do, thinking-wise. Perhaps that is > what you said anyway, and I just missed your point here. > > Michael Staples > > > > > --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- Stuart R Elden Brunel University, UK gtpgsre-AT-brunel.ac.uk --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005