From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!access.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!emory!gwinnett! Tue Jan 28 12:16:34 EST 1992
Article 3060 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!access.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!emory!gwinnett!
depsych!rc
>From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, again
Message-ID: <Na0ZeB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 92 13:43:10 GMT
References: <1992Jan21.233819.26595@news.media.mit.edu>
Lines: 54

minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:

> In article <1992Jan21.192710.18340@aisb.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aifh.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Da
> >
> >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.

I wonder if this suggestion doesn't provide the opening I have
been looking for to open a thread on the interrelations between
scientific (analytic and empirical) thought and ideological
(mainly dialectical) thought.  (Just where "philosophical" thought
fits into the picture isn't at all clear to me, but then it isn't
clear to anyone else, either.)

The suggested empirical study, which fits into the social
psychological area of attitude and belief measurement, would, even
if it came out in the expected direction, not be conclusive -- I
think technically any interpretation would commit an ad hominem
fallacy -- but it would be suggestive.

I have been fascinated by the arguments of the pro-life forces.
They demonstrate the ingenuity of the human mind after there has
been a dialectical polarization of an issue into two contrary
positions.  The specific arguments of the pro-life people as thy
try to fix an earlier point in the Heraclitean-like flow of life
from one generation to another employ a mixture of logic and
virtual-reality-like conceptualization that are completely new,
even though they come to feel like extensions of "traditional"
teachings to their adherents.  I see a lot of similarities between
the logics and ideological movements in the anti-AI and pro-life
positions.  Among other things it suggests you would have to add
"_potential_ personhood" to your list that already has sentience,
intentionality and consciousness -- not to mention understanding
and semantics!

--
Richard Carlson        |    rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Midtown Medical Center |    {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
Atlanta, Georgia       |
(404) 881-6877         |


