comments
Respond
Comment on the article
Add a citation
Reply with an article
Start a new topic
Edit
Edit article
Delete article
Share
Invite
Link
Embed
Social media
Avatar
View
Graph
Explorer
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 levels
Load all levels
All
Dagre
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 level
Load all levels
All
Tree
SpaceTree
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Radial
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Box
Focus
Expanding
Down
Up
All
Down
Article ✓
Outline
Document
Down
All
Page
Canvas
Time
Timeline
Calendar
Updates
Subscribe to updates
Get updates
Past 24 hours
Past week
Past month
Past year
Pause updates
Contact us
Hubert Dreyfus
Arguments advanced by Hubert Dreyfus.
RELATED ARTICLES
Explain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence☜A collaboratively editable version of Robert Horns brilliant and pioneering debate map Can Computers Think?—exploring 50 years of philosophical argument about the possibility of computer thought.☜F1CEB7
⌃
Protagonists
Protagonists☜The contributions of over 300 protagonists can be explored via a surname search, or using the growing list developing here.☜D3B8AB
■
Hubert Dreyfus
Hubert Dreyfus☜Arguments advanced by Hubert Dreyfus.☜D3B8AB
⇤
Can’t recognise similarities between whole images
Can’t recognise similarities between whole images☜Humans directly recognise similarities between images. Computers, by contrast, must compare images by assigning features to them and then comparing those features using some objective criterion.☜FFFACD
⇤
Need images to be transformed into descriptions
Need images to be transformed into descriptions☜If a computer is going to make inferences from an image, then the image must first be decomposed into a list of facts. Humans are not constrained in this way; they can work directly with images.☜FFFACD
⇤
Gestalt recognition is impossible for computers
Gestalt recognition is impossible for computers☜Gestalt recognition involves the immediate comprehension of a pattern as a unified whole. Computers can only sequentially process the components of a pattern; they cant recognize Gestalt wholes.☜FFFACD
⇤
Connectionist computers lack commonsense
Connectionist computers lack commonsense☜Connectionist networks are unable to make generalisations and classifications in the way human beings do, because they lack our commonsense understanding of the world.☜FFFACD
⇤
Computers never move beyond explicit rules
Computers never move beyond explicit rules☜In acquiring skills humans initially use explicit rules and then advance through stages in which performance becomes increasingly skilled, fluid and habituated. At the highest level the rules are no longer consulted. Computers stay tied to rules.☜FFFACD
⇤
The body is essential to human intelligence
The body is essential to human intelligence☜Possession of a body is essential to human reasoning, pattern recognition, and interaction. Understanding what a chair is, for example, presupposes knowledge of how the body sits, bends fatigues etc.☜FFFACD
⇤
Madeleine has bodily and imaginative skills
Madeleine has bodily and imaginative skills☜The claim that Madeleine acquired common sense solely from books ignores the fact that Madeleine has a body with an inside and outside, can be moved around in the world, and can communicate with others and imagine how they encounter the world.☜FFFACD
⇤
Collins's understanding of Madeleine is science fiction
Collins's understanding of Madeleine is science fiction☜Madeleine was nothing like an immobile box. In crawling, kicking, balancing, overcoming obstacles, finding optimal distances for listening etc, Madeleine had enough of a body structure to allow her to be socialized to the human world.☜FFFACD
⇤
Brute-force is not how humans play chess
Brute-force is not how humans play chess☜Dreyfus is arguing that brute-force techniques such as heuristic search are not psychologically realistic—not that brute-force techniques cant play chess effectively.☜FFFACD
⇤
Heuristic search is inconsistent with human phenomenology
Heuristic search is inconsistent with human phenomenology☜Human experts play chess by zeroing in on relevant moves in fringe consiciousness rather than by iterating through a list of possiblities.☜FFFACD
⇤
Humans zero-in on information in fringe consciousness
Humans zero-in on information in fringe consciousness☜The fringes of consciousness provide marginal awareness of background information—for example the experience of the front of a house is fringed by an awareness of the back of the house.☜FFFACD
⇤
Humans see chess board as a Gestalt whole
Humans see chess board as a Gestalt whole☜Humans see a chess board as an organized pattern or Gestalt. Any move is part of the unfolding Gestalt pattern—and chess masters use pattern recognition to zero in on unprotected pieces and promising areas for attack or defence.☜FFFACD
⇤
Trail and Error different from essential discrimination
Trail and Error different from essential discrimination☜Humans can intuitively grasp whats essential or inessential about a problem and zero in on it. Symbol systems lack the capacity for essential discrimination and proceed blindly by brute-force trail and error.☜FFFACD
⇤
Combinatorial explosion of knowledge
Combinatorial explosion of knowledge☜Representing all of the information relevant to an open-ended domain, or to human commonsense understanding in general, is an impossible task, because it results in a combinatorial explosion of relevant information.☜FFFACD
⇤
Creative discoveries restructure knowledge
Creative discoveries restructure knowledge☜Human knowledge is subject to radical restructuring on the basis of creative discoveries which can alter a persons enitre understanding of the world. Such fundamental shifts can take place at personal, conceptual and cultural levels.☜FFFACD
⇤
Kierkegaard's Leap
Kierkegaard's Leap☜There are times when a person makes a leap to a new sphere of existence, which infuses his or her being with a new order of significance. Such leaps are so radical that afterwards we cannot imagine how life could ever have been otherwise.☜FFFACD
⇤
CYC inconsistent with phenomenology of coping
CYC inconsistent with phenomenology of coping☜CYC is inconsistent with the phenomenology of skilled coping -- and wont therefore be able to demonstrate commonsense.☜FFFACD
⇤
Humans behave in orderly manner without rules
Humans behave in orderly manner without rules☜Human activity may be described by rules, but these rules are not necessarily followed in producing the activity.☜FFFACD
⇤
Explicit values can't organise a field of experience
Explicit values can't organise a field of experience☜Human interest organises a field of experience that cant be captured by explicit goals and values. ☜FFFACD
⇤
The Context Antinomy
The Context Antinomy☜For a machine to understand sentences in a natural language, it must place those sentences in a context. However, because machines use explicit bits of data they run up against an antinomy (described in detailed text). ☜FFFACD
⇤
The critique of artificial reason
The critique of artificial reason☜AI is the culmination of a flawed tradition in philosophy that tries to explain human reason in terms of explicit rules, symbols, and calculating procedures. But human activity and being differ from that of calculating machines like computers.☜FFFACD
⇤
Dreyfus issues a testable challenge
Dreyfus issues a testable challenge☜Faced with Mary saw a dog in the window. She wanted it AI systems struggle to know whether it refers to the dog or window. Identifying what pronouns refer to in such sentences is the next problem logic-based AI should try to solve.☜FFFACD
⇤
Combinatorial explosion of knowledge
Combinatorial explosion of knowledge☜Representing all of the information relevant to an open-ended domain, or to human commonsense understanding in general, is an impossible task, because it results in a combinatorial explosion of relevant information. ☜FFFACD
□
Alan Turing
Alan Turing☜Arguments advanced by Alan Turing.☜D3B8AB
□
Daniel Dennett
Daniel Dennett☜Arguments advanced by Daniel Dennett.☜D3B8AB
□
David Chalmers
David Chalmers☜Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and director of the Centre for Consciousness at ANU, and Professor of Philosophy and co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at NYU.☜D3B8AB
□
David Cole
David Cole☜Arguments advanced by David Cole.☜D3B8AB
□
David Rumelhart
David Rumelhart☜Arguments advanced by David Rumelhart.☜D3B8AB
□
Douglas Hofstadter
Douglas Hofstadter☜Arguments advanced by Douglas Hofstadter.☜D3B8AB
□
George Lakoff
George Lakoff☜Arguments advanced by George Lakoff.☜D3B8AB
□
Georges Rey
Georges Rey☜Arguments advanced by Georges Rey.☜D3B8AB
□
Herbert Simon
Herbert Simon☜Arguments advanced by Herbert Simon.☜D3B8AB
□
Hilary Putnam
Hilary Putnam☜Arguments advanced by Hilary Putnam.☜D3B8AB
□
Hugh Loebner
Hugh Loebner☜Arguments advanced by Hugh Loebner.☜D3B8AB
□
Jack Copeland
Jack Copeland☜Arguments advanced by Jack Copeland.☜D3B8AB
□
James McClelland
James McClelland☜Arguments advanced by James McClelland.☜D3B8AB
□
James Moor
James Moor☜Arguments advanced by James Moor.☜D3B8AB
□
Jerry Fodor
Jerry Fodor☜Arguments advanced by Jerry Fodor.☜D3B8AB
□
John Lucas
John Lucas☜Arguments advanced by John Lucas.☜D3B8AB
□
John Searle
John Searle☜Arguments advanced by John Searle.☜D3B8AB
□
Joseph F. Rychlak
Joseph F. Rychlak☜Arguments advanced by Joseph F. Rychlak.☜D3B8AB
□
Keith Gunderson
Keith Gunderson☜Arguments advanced by Keith Gunderson.☜D3B8AB
□
L.J. Landau
L.J. Landau☜☜D3B8AB
□
Ned Block
Ned Block☜Arguments advanced by Ned Block.☜D3B8AB
□
Robert French
Robert French☜Arguments advanced by Robert French.☜D3B8AB
□
Roger Penrose
Roger Penrose☜Arguments advanced by Roger Penrose.☜D3B8AB
□
Selmer Bringsjord
Selmer Bringsjord☜Arguments advanced by Selmer Bringsjord.☜D3B8AB
□
Stephen Kosslyn
Stephen Kosslyn☜Arguments advanced by Stephen Kosslyn.☜D3B8AB
□
Zenon Pylyshyn
Zenon Pylyshyn☜Arguments advanced by Zenon Pylyshyn.☜D3B8AB
□
Graph of this discussion
Graph of this discussion☜Click this to see the whole debate, excluding comments, in graphical form☜dcdcdc
Enter the title of your article
Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Click the button to enter task scheduling information
Open
Enter the main body of your article
Prefer more work space? Try the
big editor
Enter task details
Message text
Select assignee(s)
Due date (click calendar)
RadDatePicker
RadDatePicker
Open the calendar popup.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<
<
July 2024
>
<<
July 2024
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
27
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
28
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
29
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
30
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
31
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
32
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Reminder
No reminder
1 day before due
2 days before due
3 days before due
1 week before due
Ready to post
Copy to text
Enter
Cancel
Task assignment(s) have been emailed and cannot now be altered
Lock
Cancel
Save
Comment graphing options
Choose comments:
Comment only
Whole thread
All comments
Choose location:
To a new map
To this map
New map options
Select map ontology
Options
Standard (default) ontology
College debate ontology
Hypothesis ontology
Influence diagram ontology
Story ontology
Graph to private map
Cancel
Proceed
+Comments (
0
)
- Comments
Add a comment
Newest first
Oldest first
Show threads
+Citations (
0
)
- Citations
Add new citation
List by:
Citerank
Map
+About
- About
Entered by:-
David Price
NodeID:
#2785
Node type:
Protagonist
Entry date (GMT):
7/20/2007 6:20:00 PM
Last edit date (GMT):
7/20/2007 6:20:00 PM
Show other editors
Incoming cross-relations:
0
Outgoing cross-relations:
23
Average rating:
0
by
0
users
Enter comment
Select article text to quote
Cancel
Enter
welcome text
First name
Last name
Email
Skip
Join
x
Select file to upload