Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Thought Question
Message-ID: <D4ttMz.I4x@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <jqbD4GIA2.5ED@netcom.com> <D4oA9o.Hos@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <jqbD4roBv.9Dv@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 18:49:47 GMT
Lines: 52
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:2650 comp.ai.philosophy:25831 comp.ai:27881

In article <jqbD4roBv.9Dv@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>In article <D4oA9o.Hos@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <jqbD4GIA2.5ED@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>>>
>>>Now, you may say that "echo" isn't the right sort of programming language,
>>>that that's not what you meant.  But then you never said what you meant [Jeff
>>>Dalton would love you for that]. 
>>
>>Nonsense.  My objection is to demands for definitions, not to requests
>>for explanations (unless they're just a refusal to make any effort to
>>understand or to accept any of the burden of proof).
>
>When I ask you to explain the meanings of your terms, you refuse
>with this nonsense about demanding definitions.  I have tired of
>such disingenuousness.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to spend my time trying to produce
definitions that will satisfy you, whether the "request" is for
"definitions" or for "explaining the meanings of terms".

I find that there's plenty of interesting discussion in CogSci
and in philosophy of mind that doesn't get hung up on definitions,
and if you want comp.ai.phil to be different and avoid that error,
you can make it so without my help.  I have never seen anything
interesting emerge after a net discussion takes up definitions.

BTW, I rather suspect you will equate not getting hung up on
definitions with refusing to be clear.  If so, I invite you to
ignore the unclear nonsense you so despise.

I'll leave you with the following quotes from that excellent book
_Consciousness in Contemporary Science_:

  `Qualia' is an unfamiliar term for something that could not be
  more familiar to each of us: the _way things seem to us_.  As is
  often the case with philosophical terms, it is often easier to
  give examples than to give a definition of the term.  [Dennett]

  Each of us will have his or her own idea of what, if anything,
  is meant by `consciousness', and what its value might be as a
  concept, or cluster of concepts, in scientific discourse and
  theory.  But to insist that the value must depend, as a prerequisite,
  on the availability of a precise definition would, I think, be
  a mistake.  Indeed, if we always insisted on precise definitions
  we would all be speechless almost all the time.  Definitions
  and precise theoretical constructs are the final product, not
  the starting point of inquiry.  [Lawrence Weiskranz]

Note that I'm not offering these quotes as some kind of argument.

-- jd
