Talk:Commonsense reasoning

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Commonsense reasoning article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Source[edit]

Parking this here until it can be used:

Ten years ago, Hayes published the "Second naive physics manifesto" (Hayes, 1985b). Hayes proposed that we "put away childish things by building large-scale formalisations," beginning with "our knowledge of the everyday physical world." He, and others, have since put a lot of effort into developing models of our common sense understanding of the physical world.

But common sense has been a big problem for artificial intelligence, and despite the attempts of many brave souls (e.g. Hayes, McCarthy, McDermott, and Lenat) it hasn't really yielded: "the common sense knowledge problem has blocked all progress in theoretical artificial intelligence" (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1988).

Good parking! A perfect example of the high-strung provocative style of the AI+Philosophy debate. It might be usable first when there's an article context describing the ongoing AI/Cognitive Science/Philosophy enflamed debate full of sarcasms and badly masked emotionalisms, based on a race for acquiring the research funds. Some readers will simply be offended if it occurs without a context. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belong to Commonsense knowledge base?[edit]

The articles Commonsense reasoning and Commonsense knowledge base seems to contain tightly connected thingies. Shouldn't the articles perhaps be merged for a while, till the article text becomes larger? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rursus and others, I opened a discussion here. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]