From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!nuscc!maclane!smoliar Wed Feb  5 11:56:49 EST 1992
Article 3459 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3459 sci.philosophy.tech:2035
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!nuscc!maclane!smoliar
>From: smoliar@maclane.iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar)
Subject: Re: Robotic Follies (was re: Strong AI and Panpsy
Message-ID: <1992Feb4.015001.9719@nuscc.nus.sg>
Keywords: panpsychism
Sender: usenet@nuscc.nus.sg
Reply-To: smoliar@iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar)
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore
References: <1992Feb1.183054.8327@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Feb2.221112.16576@ida.liu.se> <1992Feb3.104210.8401@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 01:50:01 GMT

In article <1992Feb3.104210.8401@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@coolidge.harvard.edu
(Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>
>What I do find objectionable is the rampant ignorance that produces
>sweeping statements like "So as far as I'm concerned, it is the use of this
>word [i.e. `consciousness'], as though it represents anything important,
>e.g., some irreducible attribute of mind -- that has kept philosophy, since
>the time of Kant, from contributing important insights to psychology."  To
>me, this position represents a wholesale rejection of two centuries of
>intense intellectual pursuits by some of the greatest minds mankind has
>managed to produce; the fact that Minsky manages to emit this blatant
>balderdash makes him an intellectual peer of the Soviet ideologues of the
>Forties, who had no trouble characterizing cybernetics as "the painted
>whore of Imperialism".  Sorry, but from my perspective the extent and depth
>of Minsky's contribution to human culture is in no way comparable to those
>of  Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, or Freud.
>
It is always a bit risky trying to speak for Minsky, but I shall take the risk
of sticking my neck out an inch or two.  I am not sure that Minsky is
particularly concerned with contributing to "human culture."  He is certainly
interested in influencing how we think about minds--our own, those we have
encountered, and those we might encounter.  Since one could make a case that
such thought is part of our "culture," one might say that he is making an
indirect contribution.  However, his style is to provoke us into asking
questions, rather than accepting answers.  This style sharply contrasts
the attitude of adoration which one frequently (but, fortunately, not always)
finds among academic philosophers who are more interested in the pedestals
which bear the weight of Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Freud than in
why "human culture" has decided to place them on those pedestals.  Like
Wittgenstein, Minsky struggles with his questions, even when those struggles
take him further from, rather than closer to, any possible answers.  Perhaps
his contribution to "human culture" is that such struggles are just as
"legitimate," if not more so, as those which lead to nice neat theses and
treatises.
-- 
Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511
Internet:  smoliar@iss.nus.sg


