Феноменология против символического искусственного интеллекта: философия научения Хьюберта Дрейфуса.
A conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) researchers and phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus arose in the 1960s and continued until the 2000s. The creators of the first AI programs believed that skill acquisition is a matter of solving problems by using particular mental representations,or heuristics. Dreyfus set out to prove that heuristics are not needed for skill acquisition because the human mind and body are capable of reacting to problematic situations in a flexible way without any mental representations. By clarifying the backstory of the conflict and analyzing the fundamental contradictions between the two theories of skill, the article shows how the phenomenology of skill acquisition originated from a critique of symbolic AI. Dreyfus developed his understanding of interconnections between mind and body in opposition to the associationism in the theories of Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Edward Feigenbaum. He maintained that human beings have fringe consciousness, insight and tolerance of ambiguity and that they have a specific body structure and needs which make it possible to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant features in the environment and get a maximum grip of it. The author analyzes how theories of learning created within symbolic AI influenced Dreyfus’s five-stage model of skill acquisition. That model explained why programs by Simon and his colleagues achieved initial success, but it also exposed their limitations. To clarify the teleology of skill, Dreyfus explored how the idea of motor intentionality is connected with neural network modelling. Two perspectives on the role of Dreyfus in the history of AI are outlined together with the reasons why his philosophy had almost no effect on the AI community even though it was influential in the social sciences and humanities. Finally, current challenges facing the phenomenology of skill acquisition are explored.
The volume is dedicated to Boris Mirkin on the occasion of his 70th birthday. In addition to his startling PhD results in abstract automata theory, Mirkin’s ground breaking contributions in various fields of decision making and data analysis have marked the fourth quarter of the 20th century and beyond. Mirkin has done pioneering work in group choice, clustering, data mining and knowledge discovery aimed at finding and describing non-trivial or hidden structures—first of all, clusters, orderings, and hierarchies—in multivariate and/or network data.
This volume contains a collection of papers reflecting recent developments rooted in Mirkin's fundamental contribution to the state-of-the-art in group choice, ordering, clustering, data mining, and knowledge discovery. Researchers, students, and software engineers will benefit from new knowledge discovery techniques and application directions.
The author differs several approaches to law in classical eurasianism. These distinctions, on his opinion, are based on metalegal grounds – on «alleinheit» theory in the writings of L.P. Karsavin and on «phenomenological method» in the works of N.N. Alexeev
In this work two philosophical concepts are being examined: “world-picture” of Ludwig Wittgenstein and “lifeworld” of Edmund Husserl. The aim of this work is to show that these two concepts have much in common.
This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 12th Industrial Conference on Data Mining, ICDM 2012, held in Berlin, Germany in July 2012. The 22 revised full papers presented were carefully reviewed and selected from 97 submissions. The papers are organized in topical sections on data mining in medicine and biology; data mining for energy industry; data mining in traffic and logistic; data mining in telecommunication; data mining in engineering; theory in data mining; theory in data mining: clustering; theory in data mining: association rule mining and decision rule mining.
On the one hand, Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics is admittedly the integrative part of the history of phenomenological movement. On the other hand, the hermeneutical subject area, as well as disciplinary self-awareness of hermeneutics, diverges considerably from that of the initial E. Husserl's phenomenological project. This fact serves as a motif for reconstruction of the intrinsic logic of the phenomenological movement. The aim of such reconstruction is to answer the following questions: What is the reason for including philosophical hermeneutics into phenomenological philosophy? What role does hermeneutics play in the history of the phenomenological movement? The interpretation of phenomenological subject area in terms of primordial phenomenality serves as a horizon for this reconstruction of the essential logic of phenomenological research. Such understanding of phenomenological philosophy focus has priority over conventional characteristics of phenomenological subject matter as a variety of phenomena accessible within special methodological attitude. It allows, first of all, to avoid fragmentation of the area of primordial, i.e. phenomenological phenomena and to minimize presuppositions. The totality of phenomenality blocks constructivism inherent to descriptive phenomenology and in consequence limits the application field of reflexive or methodological approaches. The process of disclosing or articulating primordial phenomenality can be described as phenomenologising. Eventually, phenomenology as an explicative method is regarded as the first part of the two-level process of phenomenologising. The second part of this process is the spontaneous self-disclosing of primordial phenomenality. The idea of two-level phenomenology (phenomenology as a method and as a spontaneous event) has been differently realised in Heidegger's and Gadamer's phenomenological-hermeneutical conceptions. From the very beginning Heidegger stands up for the performative, i.e. existential-practical understanding of phenomenological explication. According to him, phenomenology does not so much explicate phenomena but points at those areas and forms of experience where that explication occurs spontaneously. Still, Heidegger is oriented at the explication of static structures of these experiences (which he calls existentialities), which allows us to speak about rudimentary transcendentalism of his philosophical position. In his late works Heidegger emphasises the world-disclosing potency of ontic experiences. Gadamer develops this tendency considering various everyday experiences such as perception of art, participation in rituals, reading, and etc. to be areas of spontaneous phenomenologising.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.