From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!coolidge!zeleny Wed Feb  5 11:56:31 EST 1992
Article 3431 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3431 sci.philosophy.tech:2026
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!coolidge!zeleny
>From: zeleny@coolidge.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Robotic Follies (was re: Strong AI and Panpsy
Keywords: panpsychism
Message-ID: <1992Feb3.104210.8401@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 92 15:42:07 GMT
References: <21879@life.ai.mit.edu> <1992Feb1.183054.8327@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Feb2.221112.16576@ida.liu.se>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 78
Nntp-Posting-Host: coolidge.harvard.edu

In article <1992Feb2.221112.16576@ida.liu.se> 
c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge) writes:

>zeleny@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>>In article <21879@life.ai.mit.edu> 
>>minsky@transit.ai.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:

MM:
>>>                                                          Simply
>>>because the human mind is not a simple data-base plus processor, or
>>>axiom-set plus -rule(s) of inference.

MZ:
>>I will pay a bounty of US $100 to anyone who is the first to present me
>>with proof that the above straw man view has ever been held by any thinker
>>outside of the AI community, in particular by a known philosopher.

PG:
>Will you pay me to show that the view has been attributed AI proponents
>in general by anti-AI philosophers looking for easy targets? Better yet, 
>pay me a mere $10 per head - I want to make *big* money. Mr. Zeleny, only
>a maximally malicious reading of Mr. Minsky's article could make anyone
>believe he attributed this belief to AI opponents.

Ah, Pontus, you are taking things out of context, as you promised not to
do... the point of Professor Minsky's statement was to give a (putative)
reason why formal discussion of belief is impossible; the point of my reply
was that belief semantics in no way presupposes idiotic premisses of the
above sort.  As for anti-AI philosophers, I simply don't know any, -- I
know Putnam, and have met Searle, but I certainly wouldn't call them that.
Not do I consider myself to be particularly anti-AI; indeed, on Chalmers'
definition thereof as the claim that nature has no monopoly on intelligence
(I am sure he'll correct my inept paraphrase of his formulation) I would be
perfectly willing to accept it as a working hypothesis.

What I do find objectionable is the rampant ignorance that produces
sweeping statements like "So as far as I'm concerned, it is the use of this
word [i.e. `consciousness'], as though it represents anything important,
e.g., some irreducible attribute of mind -- that has kept philosophy, since
the time of Kant, from contributing important insights to psychology."  To
me, this position represents a wholesale rejection of two centuries of
intense intellectual pursuits by some of the greatest minds mankind has
managed to produce; the fact that Minsky manages to emit this blatant
balderdash makes him an intellectual peer of the Soviet ideologues of the
Forties, who had no trouble characterizing cybernetics as "the painted
whore of Imperialism".  Sorry, but from my perspective the extent and depth
of Minsky's contribution to human culture is in no way comparable to those
of  Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, or Freud.

PG:
>[deletions: substance from Mr. Minsky, rhetoric from Mr. Zeleny - not
> necessarily *bad* rhetoric, but rhetoric nevertheless]

Again, I saw no substance in Minsky's posting, -- just programmatic claims,
augmented by wholesale denunciation of alternative views, and backed by
implicit reference to his own authority.

>--
>/-------------------------+-------- DISCLAIMER ---------\
>| Pontus Gagge            | The views expressed herein  |
>| University of Link|ping | are compromises between my  |
>|                         | mental subpersonae, and may |
>| c89ponga@und.ida.liu.se | be held by none of them.    |
>\-------------------------+-----------------------------/


`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


