From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!chaos!noc.near.net!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken Tue Nov 26 12:30:44 EST 1991
Article 1420 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:1009 comp.ai.philosophy:1420
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!chaos!noc.near.net!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Daniel Dennett (was Re: Commenting on the posting
Message-ID: <39442@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 91 15:41:42 GMT
References: <1991Nov15.160741.5495@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Nov16.014015.1074@yarra-glen.aaii.oz.au> <29272997.28788@orion.oac.uci.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.tech
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 14

In article <29272997.28788@orion.oac.uci.edu> bboyer@orion.oac.uci.edu (Bruce Boyer) writes:
>I agree with your objection based on prejudice. But worse, as I understand
>his approach, Dennett is anything but a reductionist. His point is that
>we take an intentional stance toward systems sufficiently complex that
>other stances (physical and design stances) don't yield sufficient 
>understanding. We then result to attributions of beliefs, desires, etc.

I'm bewildered by this comment. Could you elaborate? What does it mean to
"result to attributions"? Did you omit some word? 

On a broader level: what justification is there for believing that human
thought is a computational process? On first glance, one might believe
that computation is to thought as differential equations are to the flight
of birds --- i.e., a description of something, not the thing itself.


