From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!psuvax1!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!jvnc.net!nuscc!hilbert!smoliar Mon Dec  9 10:47:40 EST 1991
Article 1825 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!psuvax1!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!jvnc.net!nuscc!hilbert!smoliar
>From: smoliar@hilbert.iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Dennett on Edelman--what a total loss
Message-ID: <1991Dec3.092553.24969@nuscc.nus.sg>
Date: 3 Dec 91 09:25:53 GMT
References: <57569@netnews.upenn.edu> <1991Nov27.031545.11235@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <57730@netnews.upenn.edu>
Sender: usenet@nuscc.nus.sg
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore
Lines: 25

In article <57730@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
>  I thought I'd make
>a point that AI folks don't do enough neurological homework, and so
>I picked Dennett as being closer to the middle--he at least sometimes
>does his neurological homework--and I was surprised and annoyed at the
>hatchet job Dennett did on Edelman.  I suppose I shouldn't have been
>surprised--he's done this hatchet job before, but I'd forgotten about
>it.  (See, eg, the end of his "Cognitive Wheels" essay in the Boden
>anthology.)
>
I remember reading this paper when I reviewed THE ROBOT'S DILEMMA for
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.  I went back to see what I had to say about
that contribution:

		Unfortunately, while Dennett has an entertaining
	writing style, one is never quite sure what one has digested
	when the reading is done.

I do not think my position has changed much since that review appeared in 1988.
-- 
Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511
Internet:  smoliar@iss.nus.sg


