From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!udel!cis.udel.edu Tue Nov 26 12:30:54 EST 1991
Article 1437 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:1437 sci.philosophy.tech:1023
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!udel!cis.udel.edu
>From: lintz@cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Daniel Dennett
Message-ID: <71076@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 91 17:29:59 GMT
References: <1991Nov16.014015.1074@yarra-glen.aaii.oz.au> <OZ.91Nov19130115@ursa.sis.yorku.ca> <1991Nov20.002510.5654@husc3.harvard.edu>
Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 17
Nntp-Posting-Host: buster.cis.udel.edu

In article <1991Nov20.002510.5654@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>for a prime example of [Dennet's] intellectual dishonesty, see his petulant,
>disingenuous response to Colin McGinn's "The Problem of Consciousness",
>towards the end of the book, and then, by going back to McGinn's text,
>figure out the rather obvious reason why it is highly unlikely that Dennett
>read the book he's citing.  Also spot his obligatory mention of Penrose,
>curiously combined with lack of substantive response to his devastating
>anti-AI arguments.  Charlatan or ignoramus? you be the judge.

Devasting anti-AI arguments from Penrose? Isn't this the same 
Penrose that basically said that consciousness is the result 
of some process in quantum physics that hasn't been discovered
yet? Who is really the charlatan or ignoramus?

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu


