Newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.psychology,rec.arts.books,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!news!minsky
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: Chomsky on Consciousness and Dennett
Message-ID: <1995Jun14.015630.15819@media.mit.edu>
Summary: minsky
Sender: news@media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
References: <JMC.95Jun12013106@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <802988140snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <3rl1ce$dau@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 01:56:30 GMT
Lines: 20
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.lang:40108 sci.psychology:43157 comp.ai.philosophy:28836

In article <3rl1ce$dau@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk> A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman) writes:
>David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:

>Why can't you use predicate calculus to talk about it?
>
>> At first blush,
>> I  would say that any attempt to regiment the intensional  within
>> the  predicate  calculus must be akin to absorbing  alchemy  into
>> chemistry or astrology into cosmology.
>
>Why? I see no comparison.
>
>I have found it hard to see the point of some of your comments.
>Maybe it's because you are making some strange assumptions about
>AI/computation/predicate-logic ?

Well, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the propensity of many
AI-ers to confine themselves to *first-order* predicate calculus might
indeed preclude making (for example) adequate extension vs. intension
distinctions.  I've found that most students think PC is equivalent to
