From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!ogicse!milton!forbis Tue Jan 28 12:15:10 EST 1992
Article 2968 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!ogicse!milton!forbis
>From: forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, again
Message-ID: <1992Jan21.202649.6169@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 92 20:26:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.1992Jan21.202649.6169
References: <6008@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan20.175243.30222@spss.com> <1992Jan21.192710.18340@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 17

In article <1992Jan21.192710.18340@aisb.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aifh.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>But in any case if Searle's arguments were
>just bluster, why would anyone be taking them seriously?  I think
>that's actually an interesting question.  Why are Searle's arguments
>still being debated?

>-- jd

I think there are assumptions about machines which people don't want to accept
about themselves.  They will latch onto a bad argument over none to support 
their a priori beliefs.

Haven't you seen people use evidence after having it shown false?  Maybe I'm 
the only one who has had to fight the same battles against the same people
time after time.

--gary forbis@u.washington.edu


