From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Wed Sep 16 21:22:30 EDT 1992
Article 6841 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Searle's The Rediscovery of the Mind
Message-ID: <7498@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:10:53 GMT
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 32

Has there been any discussion of Searle's new book _The Rediscovery
of the Mind_?  If not, why not?

Indeed, why has there been so little discussion of Dennett's
_Consciousness Explained_?

And why do we see so many people complaining that philosophers 
haven't a clue (as compared to AI and computational cog sci types)
without even mentioning any philosophers about whom the claim is
supposedly true much less explaining where they went wrong?

Possibilities:

 1. Philosophers are so clueless they're not worth discussing.

 2. No one's read the books or knows the views of any philosophers
    in sufficient detail.

 3. It's not worth discussing such things with the clueless,
    uninformed people who dominate the newsgroup.

 4. Everyone wants to talk about their own ideas without having
    to wait until they've done some reading.

 5. It's not worth discussing philosophers until they look like
    a serious "political" threat to AI (eg, the Chinese Room).

 6. It's much more important to (a) define "intelligence",
    (b) refute crypro-dualist scum, (c) roast that turkey who
    said such stupid things in the last article.

-- jd


