Online research in philosophy

That Strong AI is still alive may have a lot to do with its avoidance of true tests. When Kasparov sits down to face the meanest chessbot in town, he has the deck stacked against him: his play may involve super-computation, but we know that perfect chess can be played by a nite-state automaton, so Kasparov loses if the engineers are su - ciently clever : : : (Bringsjord, 1997b), p. 9; para-.

Selmer Bringsjord & Joshua Taylor∗ Department of Cognitive Science Department of Computer Science The Rensselaer AI & Reasoning (RAIR) Lab Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Troy NY 12180 USA http://www.rpi.edu/∼brings {selmer,tayloj}@rpi.edu..

I know that those of you who know my mind know that I think I know that we can't know Gödel's mind through computation: ``The Impact : Failing to Know " If computationalism is false, observant philosophers willing to get their hands dirty should be able to find tell-tale signs today: automated theorem proving tomorrow (Eastern APA): robots as zombanimals But let's start with little 'ol me, and literary, not mathematical, creativity: Selmer (samples) vs. Brutus1 (samples again).

Stevan Harnad and I seem to be thinking about many of the same issues. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't; but I always find his reasoning refreshing, his positions sensible, and the problems with which he's concerned to be of central importance to cognitive science. His "Grounding Symbols in the Analog World with Neural Nets" (= GS) is no exception. And GS not only exemplifies Harnad's virtues, it also provides a springboard for diving into Harnad- Bringsjord terrain.

Zlatev offers surprisingly weak reasoning in support of his view that robots with the right kind of developmental histories can have meaning. We ought nonetheless to praise Zlatev for an impressionistic account of how attending to the psychology of human development can help us build robots that appear to have intentionality.