From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu Tue Nov 19 11:10:30 EST 1991
Article 1356 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca alt.postmodern:79 talk.philosophy.misc:184 comp.ai.philosophy:1356
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu
!cmcl2!panix!mydog!gcf
>From: gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern,talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is "logical analysis" worth knowing?
Keywords: ai,ethics,butterfly,zombie,logic
Message-ID: <9111170903.20552@mydog.UUCP>
Date: 17 Nov 91 14:03:38 GMT
References: <HFo8aB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> <9111142140.18191@mydog.UUCP> <centaur.690241662@cc.gatech.edu><1991Nov16.011947.29575@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Lines: 36

centaur@terminus.gatech.edu (Anthony G. Francis) writes:
| >I'm sorry. I can't convince myself that this argument has any 
| >validity. In fact, I can't convince myself that it really means anything.
| >I do not think that it is appropriate to appropriate the metaphors of
| >hunting and killing, trophies and idols, worship and religion, and
| >"real life" and "zombies" and apply them to the process of the development
| >of language and the development of complex linguistic systems. These
| >are clever metaphors with pretty images, devoid of any useful content.

millerjx@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Justin W. Miller) writes:
| I would have to agree with Anthony's statement, in the exact words he put it.
| I, too, fail to understand how this type of philosophy is concerned with AI
| EXCEPT where the AI begins to develop human qualities-- and that is a mere
| technicality worthy of only brief mention. That's my analysis, anyway. True, I
| find the first statement interesting, but better left to alt.philosophy.

Could you all clarify something?  In my world -- the democratic
vistas of the working class -- if somebody says "I don't know
what you're talking about" it generally means "Please explain
what you mean."  However, I have rubbed up against the academic
world enough to know that "I don't know what you're talking 
about" in certain situations can mean "I do know what you're 
talking about, and you're full of crap -- in other words, I have 
the power to judge your argument and you, and find both wanting."

Often, I've started explaining something only to find out that
the second meaning, not the first, was the gist of the "I don't
know what you're talking about."  If you're completely satis-
fied with your understanding of my article, by all means just say
so.  Otherwise I shall be tempted to further tax your patience.

--
Gordon Fitch          *        ...!mydog.panix.com!gcf
       Bx 1238 Bowling Green Station / NYC 10274
   How do you know, but every bird that cuts the airy way
Is an immense world of delight, clos'd by your senses five?


