From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!mips!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue May 12 15:50:14 EDT 1992
Article 5538 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!mips!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Systems Reply I (repost perhaps)
Message-ID: <1992May10.181542.7667@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Keywords: AI Searle Dickhead Barf
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1992May5.191454.25793@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <6686@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992May10.165225.25257@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 18:15:42 GMT
Lines: 19

In article <1992May10.165225.25257@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>In article <6686@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:

>>If you don't agree with this, read Searle and see for yourself.
>>
>>-- jd

>I have read Searle, trying to understand something that
>I may have missed. There is nothing in his argument that
>I missed. Therefore Searle is not a good philosopher!

 Wait just a minute.  Searle's argument is flawed.  But not nearly as
seriously as this argument is flawed.

 If you can declare "Searle is not a good philosopher" simply because
there are flaws in the reasoning of one particular argument, you would
probably have to also similarly dismiss all philosophers who have ever
existed.



