Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Penrose & Banach-Tarski/Axiom of Choice
Message-ID: <CzDqrM.6CA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cara.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <burt.782758488@aupair.cs.athabasc <burt.783368171@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> <jqbCynrnE.LoG@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 21:38:09 GMT
Lines: 17

In article <jqbCynrnE.LoG@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:

>*My* intuition tells me that all these anti-strong AI arguments are so obviously
>and trivially flawed as to barely deserve a response.

If they're so obviously and trivially flawed, then why do so many
people not see the obvious and trivial flaws, expecially when
comp.ai.phil is full of people who ought to be able to point out
the flaws and explain why they're flaws?

I don't mean this as a rhetorical question; I'd like to know
what you think the problem is.

-- jd



