Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Minsky's new article (was: Roger Penro
Message-ID: <Czu78u.3GK@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <Czou9A.110@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <3atq6b$7sd@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 18:55:42 GMT
Lines: 30
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:22647 comp.ai:25497 comp.robotics:15670

In article <3atq6b$7sd@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In <Czou9A.110@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>>If Penrose hadn't attached AI, but had instead confined himself
>>to his speculations on the physics of consciousness, would there
>>be these big flame fests in comp.ai.philosophy.  No.
>
>Give it a break, Jeff.  That "flame fest" was cross posted to a large
>number of newsgroups, and the participation of regular c.a.p.
>participants seems to have been a relatively small part of the
>discussion.

I see you've decided to exploit the detail of what I said rather
than give a proper answer.

His views of AI have been a major feature of the discussion, and a
number of regular c.a.p participants have been involved.  They
haven't been a very small part of the discussion I've seen, but
perhaps you're reading it in other newsgroups than I am.  In any
case, my point is not about regular c.a.p. participants.

Criticism of his speculations re physics seem to be a relatively small
part of what's going on.  Most of the criticism would have different
substance and tone if it weren't for his attack on AI.

-- jd




