From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!cosc.canterbury.ac.nz!chisnall Tue Jan 28 12:17:38 EST 1992
Article 3138 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!cosc.canterbury.ac.nz!chisnall
>From: chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (The Technicolour Throw-up)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Message-ID: <1992Jan25.170045.3587@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>
Date: 25 Jan 92 04:00:44 GMT
References: <1992Jan24.182929.8626@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
Organization: Computer Science,University of Canterbury,New Zealand
Lines: 16
Nntp-Posting-Host: cosc.canterbury.ac.nz

>From article <1992Jan24.182929.8626@aisb.ed.ac.uk>, by philkime@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Philip Kime):
> The 'Dreyfus argument' tends to be accepted by degrees in the SF world.
> I know many SF's who still adhere to SF but are, by differeing degrees,
> wary of the Dreyfus problem. There are many who 'accept' at least some
> of Dreyfus's points but who remain SF's. Whether this is consistent is
> another matter and most certainly is down to whether the person in
> question is a Strong AI enthusiast.....weak AIers will take what they
> can get in terms of application etc. but Strong AIers are almost
> duty-bound to give up SF in the face of a even a little acceptance of
> Dreyfus's points.

Would it be possible for you to summarise Dreyfus' argument for those of us
who haven't heard of it?  References?
--
Just my two rubber ningis worth.
Name: Michael Chisnall          email: chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz


