From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Fri Jan 31 10:27:18 EST 1992
Article 3298 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle Agrees with Strong AI?
Message-ID: <1992Jan30.143453.19988@oracorp.com>
Date: 30 Jan 92 14:34:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: oracorp.1992Jan30.143453.19988
Organization: ORA Corporation
Lines: 32

Jeff Dalton writes:

> I want nothing to do with definition-oriented discussions.

> Moreover, the definition mania on the net often comes from those who
> want everything to be scientific and verifiable. But maybe that's the
> fault of bad philosophy of science rather than science.

I think it is too bad that you think so poorly of definitions. It is
clear in this area that the shouting match can go on forever: "The
Chinese Room is not capable of understanding." "It is too." "It is
not." "Prove it." "You prove it." The only hope of progress in such
discussions (in my opinion), is to attempt to come to some clarity
about the issues, and definitions are a step in that direction. If you
and I mean different things by "consciousness" or "understanding" then
it is doubtful that we can come to any agreement about whether
something is conscious or not.

In my opinion, the reason that definition discussions are such a pain
on the net is because of those with "definition-phobia". People are
deathly afraid of making a mistake in defining a word, and so will
argue heatedly against a definition that may not cover ever last
nuance of the word. In my opinion, this is taking words (and
definitions) too seriously. The definition can always be expanded and
revised to incorporate more of your intuitions. Progress in
understanding is made by being bold and audacious and falling on your
face, and then examining what went wrong. If a definition is wrong, so
what? Someone will point out the mistake.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


