From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!jeff Tue Jan 28 12:16:52 EST 1992
Article 3084 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, again
Message-ID: <1992Jan23.224129.24682@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 23 Jan 92 22:41:29 GMT
References: <1992Jan21.233819.26595@news.media.mit.edu> <Na0ZeB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Sender: news@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Network News Administrator)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 35

>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

I'd be surpsied if that were all there was to it.

>> Consider that theology is just bluster, yet most people take it
>> seriously.

The claim that theology is just bluster makes me think your idea
of "just bluster" is much more encompassing than mine.  Indeed, I'm
not sure how it can escape being either too inclusive or ill-defined.
And I'm not sure just what you'd include.  Perhaps you'd say talk 
of rights (as in "unalienable rights") was just bluster, for example.

>             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.

Perhaps the lack of tests makes it not a scientific issue, but I
don't see why that lack would disqualify something from philosophy.

-- jd


