Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <D0GJMn.Ct1@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <jqbD03p71.4n8@netcom.com> <D0CyHs.2KI@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <jqbD0DByv.H6t@netcom.com> <D0EpC9.4vB@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 20:30:22 GMT
Lines: 46
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97406 comp.ai.philosophy:23330 sci.philosophy.meta:15385

In article <D0EpC9.4vB@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <jqbD0DByv.H6t@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
..............
>>>Actually, I don't want to do any such thing.  I am merely suggesting
>>>possibilities for criteria other than the TT.  If you present me with
>>>a TT-passing program, then you'll see how or if I want to challenge its
>>>consciousness.  
>>
>>It seems to me that you are quibbling, but I'll resist quibbling back.
>
>I reject your tendentious description of what I'm doing.  "Want to
>challenge the consciousness of programs", "scrounging around",
>"signs of `consciousness'" -- give me a break!  I don't think it's
>a quibble that when you describe what I'm doing or what my views
>are you come up with something I don't recognize.
>
Frankly speaking I find "quibling" a very good description of your style.
See above: "  I am merely suggesting possibilities for criteria other than 
the TT" - and no word what these possibilities might be. In many other places
you say "This is not all that can be said" (but you don't say what else can
be said), "There are other possibilities" (and no suggestion what you think 
they might be), "I disagree" (no explanation why), etc., etc. Is it not 
"quibbling"? The only difference between what you are doing and a dictionary
defintion (my on-line Webster says "To avoid acknowledging the truth or 
importance of something by raising trivial distinctions and objections) is
that often you do not even bother with naming those distinctions and/or
objections, you merely hint at their 'possibility'.
...........
>Now, why is linguistic behavior a good sign of consciousness?  I'd
>be willing to discuss that, if you want.
>
I've lost count how many times I've said that the reason why linguistic
behavior is a good sign of consciousness is that this is a primary method we
use to decide that other people are conscious and it seems to work pretty
well. Other people have said this too.  How many more times does this have 
to be said, before you stop asking the same question??

>-- jd

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
