Computer projects that fail because they don’t understand philosophy

  Anyone who knows a bit about the history of computer research and development probably knows about Japan’s fifth-generation computer program. In 1982, Japan ’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry announced to the world that Japan was launching a fifth-generation computer program in an attempt to become the world ’s boss in the computer field; Why did Japan’s ambitious plan fail? From a philosophical point of view, the reason for the failure of the Japanese is precisely because the project developers represented by Motooka Takashi and Takaichi Hirohiro lack the quality of Japanese philosophy and cannot obtain important inspiration for artificial intelligence research from Japanese philosophy. The failure of the fifth-generation computer in Japan was not the failure of Japanese culture, but the failure caused by the contempt of Japanese philosophy.
  At that time, the research and development goal proposed by Japanese scientific experts was: our users can use standard Japanese to perform human-computer interaction with our machines, so our users do not need to learn programming at all! The idea is beautiful, what is the problem? The core programming language used in fifth-generation computers is Prolog. Although the language has the advantages of simplicity and comprehension, it is still essentially a variant of the traditional predicate logic of Frey’s format, that is, it can only formally specify the inferential relationship between languages, but it cannot understand its substantial meaning relationship. For example, in Chinese, “blue” roughly corresponds to blue or green, but in Chinese, “blue” also means black. So, from “this leaf is cyan”, can we conclude that it is black? This requires us to pre-define the different meanings of “qing” in different occasions. But the question here is: how do we know that the current system is the occasion where the meaning of “blue” should be interpreted as “black”, rather than the occasion where it is interpreted as “green”? We can’t do this unless we can objectify the occasion itself and make it a more important meaning-calling axiom term. However, given the complexity of the specific occasions in which words are used, the number of “meaning axioms” mentioned above will be very staggering. Therefore, the reasoning machine developed based on this idea will also be very clumsy. In short, programming in a language like Prolog cannot satisfy the original ambitions of Japanese designers.
  As long as these designers read more about the “place logic” of Japanese philosopher Nishida Kidaro, they may not be stupid on these basic issues. The simplest explanation of “place logic” is as follows: From the perspective of Nishida, the authenticity of the subject-predicate judgment itself is not the key to the problem, but the key to the judgment activity is the “place” that shaped the judgment—in fact, it is Related background knowledge and specific state of consciousness used by the subject when making a judgment. Therefore, Nishida’s meaning is nothing more than that: formal logic is not the key to reasoning, and the deep state of consciousness that makes reasoning possible is the key to intelligent activities. From this perspective, the working direction of the fifth generation computer is completely wrong, because related researchers are trying to bypass the foundation to build a balcony.
  Some people would say that the philosophy and Buddhism of Xitian are strong and have a deep continental phenomenology. Is it a bit difficult to learn from Xitian for accurate programming? I don’t think so. Although Buddhism and phenomenology have mysterious factors, scientific research on the entire internal information processing process of the subject’s judgment does not need to be mystic. In fact, cognitive psychologists have done a lot of research on how information is integrated and processed in a reliable working memory model, but R & D personnel have turned a blind eye. Ironically, although Nishida’s philosophy was one of the most important philosophical ideas provided by Japan to the world’s philosophical stage in the 20th century, understanding its essence is limited to a few professional philosophers in Japan, far from becoming National spiritual wealth. If Yuan Gangda and Ji Yibo read Xitian in advance, I’m afraid we will see the end of their planning failure early. Today, Chinese investors who despise philosophical thinking and simply believe that massive investment, massive data and huge markets can bring AI breakthroughs, can’t they feel a chill from the failure of the Japanese? Good luck to them.