From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky Tue Feb 11 15:24:52 EST 1992
Article 3517 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3517 sci.philosophy.tech:2060
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky
>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Robotic Follies (was re: Strong AI and Panpsy
Keywords: panpsychism
Message-ID: <1992Feb4.153014.5982@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: 4 Feb 92 15:30:14 GMT
References: <1992Feb2.221112.16576@ida.liu.se> <1992Feb3.104210.8401@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Feb4.015001.9719@nuscc.nus.sg>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Lines: 43

In article <1992Feb4.015001.9719@nuscc.nus.sg> smoliar@iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar) writes:
>In article <1992Feb3.104210.8401@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@coolidge.harvard.edu
>(Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>
>>[Balderdash omitted]
>>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.

Thanks, Steve.  Of course I am grateful at your defense (or apologia?)
and it is right on the mark from my viewpoint.  But I am really awed
by your use of the pedestal metaphor! It is so perfect for this
particular situation, because in actual fact, when I hear about those
particular people I do indeed sometimes imagine their heads mounted on
pedestals.  Today we have fewer busts and sculptured heads; instead we have
mounted photographs.  But to me they're all flawed; the physiognomical
fallacy, I call it, that a person's face should be thought to express
so much of its personality.

And thanks for <<-ing Zeleny's profound statement.  Because of my
K-file I don't get to see them directly, but it is good to know that
his personality is still as lively and lovable as ever.


