Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2775 talk.philosophy.misc:1667 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!apple!bionet!agate!labrea!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!kddlab!icot32!hawley From: hawley@icot32.icot.junet (David John Hawley) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence Message-ID: <2082@icot32.icot.JUNET> Date: 2 Dec 88 03:26:46 GMT References: <562@metapsy.UUCP> <2732@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Reply-To: hawley@icot31.icot.junet (David John Hawley) Organization: Fifth Generation Computing Systems (ICOT), Tokyo, Japan Lines: 26 In article <2732@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >From article <562@metapsy.UUCP>, by sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode): >" ... >" Do machines have the same subjective experience that we do when we ... >" and the input data, Occam's Razor demands that we not attribute >" subjectivity to them. > >A more proper application of Occam's Razor would be that it prevents >us from assuming a difference between humans and machines in this >regard without necessity. What does explaining behavior have to ... What are the criteria by which I may judge the suitability of an application of Occam's Razor? I know the folktale is basically the KISS principle, and I have heard that the actual criterion of simplicity is the number of 'blat' that need to be postulated (where a blat can be a thing, entity, ?property?, ...). Is this correct? This has something to do with theory formation, as per for example David Poole's Theorist default-reasoning system. Does anyone have any pointers to literature on theory preference, relative strength of arguments, preferably in an how-could-we-build-it vein? Yoroshiku (AdvTHANKSance) David Hawley