From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mcnc!ecsgate!lrc.edu!lehman_ds Tue Jan 28 12:16:22 EST 1992
Article 3049 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mcnc!ecsgate!lrc.edu!lehman_ds
>From: lehman_ds@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, again
Message-ID: <1992Jan22.175128.139@lrc.edu>
Date: 22 Jan 92 22:51:28 GMT
References: <6008@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan20.175243.30222@spss.com> <1992Jan21.192710.18340@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan21.202649.6169@milton.u.washington.edu>
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC
Lines: 26

In article <1992Jan21.202649.6169@milton.u.washington.edu>, forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis) writes:
> 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
  No your quite right... there are people arguing on both sides that are
using dead issues as supposed proof.  I think all articles should be read 
before you state "facts".  There seem to be a few people who only read a single
issue that they have kept up with someone else.  These are the people who
don't have time to read the rest, or just want a personal debate with 
someone, but I guess it's a fact of the net.
    Drew Lehman
    Lehman_ds@lrc.edu


