From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ames!olivea!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Thu Feb 20 15:20:37 EST 1992
Article 3715 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ames!olivea!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle Agrees with Strong AI?
Message-ID: <6186@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 13 Feb 92 22:18:13 GMT
References: <1992Jan30.143453.19988@oracorp.com>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 44

In article <1992Jan30.143453.19988@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>Jeff Dalton writes:
>
>> I want nothing to do with definition-oriented discussions.

>I think it is too bad that you think so poorly of definitions. 

I think poorly of definition-oriented discussions.

>                              The only hope of progress in such
>discussions (in my opinion), is to attempt to come to some clarity
>about the issues, and definitions are a step in that direction. If you
>and I mean different things by "consciousness" or "understanding" then
>it is doubtful that we can come to any agreement about whether
>something is conscious or not.

Asking someone to explain their position is quite different from
trying to force them to accept the burden of proof by demanding that
they define their terms.  Any discussion about Searle is pointless
if one side can just sit back and make the other do all the work.

>In my opinion, the reason that definition discussions are such a pain
>on the net is because of those with "definition-phobia". People are
>deathly afraid of making a mistake in defining a word, and so will
>argue heatedly against a definition that may not cover ever last
>nuance of the word. In my opinion, this is taking words (and
>definitions) too seriously. The definition can always be expanded and
>revised to incorporate more of your intuitions. Progress in
>understanding is made by being bold and audacious and falling on your
>face, and then examining what went wrong. If a definition is wrong, so
>what? Someone will point out the mistake.

And that's one of the things that's so bad about such discussions.
If you accept the burden of providing a definition, the other side
can just sit back and pick holes in it forever.  If real holes are
hard to find, they can just invent bogus ones, and get you to spend
all your time trying to correct their errors.

I've nothing against someone offering a definition.  It's demands for
definitions (and insisting on odd, non-standard definitions, and using
the dictionary as if it offered some sort of conclusive proof) that I
object to.

-- jd


