From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!oz Wed Feb  5 11:56:36 EST 1992
Article 3438 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3438 sci.philosophy.tech:2027
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!oz
>From: oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
Subject: Re: Robotic Follies (was re: Strong AI and Panpsy
In-Reply-To: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu's message of 2 Feb 92 22: 30:13 GMT
Message-ID: <OZ.92Feb4111913@ursa.sis.yorku.ca>
Sender: news@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca (USENET News System)
Organization: York U. Student Information Systems Project
References: <1992Jan28.153645.5237@cs.yale.edu> <1992Jan28.164410.9509@psych.toronto.edu>
	<OZ.92Feb2130854@ursa.sis.yorku.ca>
	<1992Feb2.173014.8370@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 16:19:13 GMT

Mikhail Zeleny goes off the deep end:

   In article <OZ.92Feb2130854@ursa.sis.yorku.ca> 
   oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:

   >In-Reply-To: zeleny@brauer.harvard.edu's message of 1 Feb 92 23: 30:52 GMT

   MM:
   >   >Yes, because of being several times removed from their contexts.  What
   >   >I've said about "belief" in a philosophical context was that the idea
   >   >that "Jack believes X" is not a reasonable thing to discuss formally.
   >   >(For example, in the context of "believes" vs. "knows".)

   MZ: [in response]
   >   As an example of proof by vehement assertion by an eminent authority, I
   >   find this claim somewhat less than credible, in particular since Alonzo
   >   Church, whose authority in logical matters trumps Professor Minsky's own
   >   many times over, has made important contributions to the subject of logic
   >   of belief, both in his Alternative (0) of Logic of Sense and Denotation,
   >   and in his recent theory of proposition surrogates.  Of course neither this
   >   fact, nor the fact that many other philosophers have since contributed to
   >   our understanding of belief, will have any bearing on Professor Minsky's
   >   long-estabilished, self-refuting beliefs on this subject.

   OY:
   >Summarize Church's latest theory instead of merely dropping his name,
   >and show why this theory should be taken more seriously than any other
   >possible theory advanced by, say Minsky. While you are at it, make sure
   >to summarize those other philosophers' views as well, and do spare us
   >more of your pedantic appeals to authority by name dropping and proof
   >by vituperative rambling.

   Had you been capable of finding your ass without a flashlight, you might
   have been able to look things up, thankful that you had been given a
   reference;

Your nastiness fails to impress me, much like your pretentious name
dropping and pseudo-philosophical gossip you substitute for a meaningful
discussion fails. So far as Church references go, my decision to look up
or ignore any reference has no bearing whatsoever on your predicament;
If you indeed have sufficient enough an understanding of those references
contained in your tirades to construct a meaningful argument or a summary
thereof, instead of a regurgitation of slogans, you are invited to do so.
I will assume that you may even be able to add some substance to your
attack on Minsky, given enough time. Feel free to use a flashlight.

You are of course welcome to ignore this invitation, at the expense of
having your further dismissals recognized once again as utter flatus
vocis[1], if nothing worse. 

          ... but then, were your cognitive faculties operating at more than
   their present pilot light capability, you might have realized in a dazzling
   paroxysm of spontaneous recollection that I have been presenting and
   discussing Churchian semantics for the past three months.

You will be pleased to learn that the last three months' worth of
zelenyana that consists mostly of sophism covered in pedantic verbiage,
ad-hominem attacks, and incoherent argumentation is captured as a part of
a complete archive of comp.ai.philosophy between Nov. 19 and Feb 1. Amongst
other interesting discussions, this archive also contains your tour-de-farce
attack on Dennett, which arguably has about the same intellectual weight
as a random selection of graffiti from a public washroom.

I will make the archive available through ftp for interested parties
as soon as some free disk space can be found for it.

							...  As the matter
   stands, you are too dull to even understand that Minsky's sorry excuse for
   a polemical stance consists not in advancing any possible theory of belief
   semantics, but in rejecting on alleged a priori grounds of the very
   possibility thereof.

The issue at hand is not whether I misunderstand Minsky, but whether you
understand him at all; His position may indeed resolve into a theory or a
metatheory of belief attribution, given rational discussion, but you seem
quite incapable of providing anything more than contemptuous rhetoric and
vigorous appeals to Church and those "other philosophers". That, I think,
is "dull".

			...  So long, halfwit.

So long? Why, are you finally leaving us for a well-deserved rest in
your local asylum? Do write to us, when you get a chance. :-)


oz
---
[1] flatus vocis: mouthfart for those unaccustomed to zelenyana.




