Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
From: books@michaels.demon.co.uk (Rodney York)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV!cs.utk.edu!emory!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!demon!michaels.demon.co.uk!books
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
References: <jqbD02yo1.35B@netcom.com> <786566258snz@michaels.demon.co.uk> <jqbD0Dtr6.J0E@netcom.com> <1994Dec6.195116.3951@news.media.mit.edu>
Organization: The Online Bookshop
Reply-To: books@michaels.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 27
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 17:01:52 +0000
Message-ID: <786819712snz@michaels.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97452 comp.ai.philosophy:23370 sci.philosophy.meta:15407

I'll try to avoid quoting & keep this short. I think a recent posting of
mine was misunderstood (my responsibility; not clear enough).

Jim Balter criticises an argument of Searle's by shooting at his subjective
comments and silly examples. I suggested that Searle's argument should be
stood on its feet, tidied up as best as possible, and then attacked.

Jim Balter responded that he considered the "strong" argument to be obvious
from the argument given, and obviously fallacious.

But then the strong argument should have been attacked explicitly, not the
window-dressing! To be pedantic, Searle's argument is clearly NOT _FALLACIOUS_
as his reasoning is not incorrect. It can be said to be _FALSE_ (and I
personally believe it to be false), as it depends (implicitly) upon a premise
which is not a proven fact.

Let me be clear, as there seems to be a move to classify humanity into
Searle-supporters and Searle-opponents (plus those who don't care): I am not
in the Searle camp.

My comments about a single paragraph are probably regarded as unbelievably
pedantic (I'd tend to along with that, frankly). But I think that this sort of
discusion should be carried out with maximum rigour and minimal rhetoric --
the ideas are complex enough already!

Rodney York
The Online Bookshop
