From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!news.oc.com!spssig.spss.com!markrose Mon Oct 19 16:59:07 EDT 1992
Article 7271 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!news.oc.com!spssig.spss.com!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Simulated Brain
Message-ID: <1992Oct14.180354.8129@spss.com>
Sender: news@spss.com (Net News Admin)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
References: <1992Oct14.033233.14444@meteor.wisc.edu> <BILL.92Oct14020023@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> <1992Oct14.152444.21325@meteor.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:03:54 GMT
Lines: 20

In article <1992Oct14.152444.21325@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu 
(Michael Tobis) writes:
>Note that it was Thingumbob, not the Snark, who vanished. I think it
>very plausible that Carroll really was talking about the hunt for the
>ineffable among the effed. Note this typical AI argument at the beginning
>of the epic:
>
>	"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
>		That alone should encourage the crew.
>	Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
>		What I tell you three times is true."

If anyone has been attempting arguments by assertion here, Michael, it's
you.  I don't recall your providing a single argument in favor of your
dualistic idea of mind.  (Distaste for materialism is not an argument.)
At the same time none of your interlocutors, so far as I can see, is guilty
of the notions you attribute to them, such as the idea that the nature of
consciousness is already explicated, or that consciousness can emerge from 
a system without being designed in.  Your positions are not made 
more attractive by misrepresenting those of your opponents.


