From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky Tue Jan 28 12:15:15 EST 1992
Article 2975 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky
>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, again
Message-ID: <1992Jan21.233819.26595@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 92 23:38:19 GMT
References: <6008@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan20.175243.30222@spss.com> <1992Jan21.192710.18340@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Lines: 18
Cc: minsky

In article <1992Jan21.192710.18340@aisb.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aifh.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>You might not think so.  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?

I suggest you might satisfy your curiosity by performing an empirical
study of the correlation between

  * those who think Searle is probably right . . . and
  * those who think that humans are probably created with souls

Consider that theology is just bluster, yet most people take it
seriously.  The anti-strong-AI is clearly a religious issue, not a
philosophical one, because there isn't any well-defined test for
sentience, intentionality, consciousness or any of the other terms at
the core of that debate.


