Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Penrose & Banach-Tarski/Axiom of Choice
Message-ID: <jqbCzK7rq.CHI@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <burt.782758488@aupair.cs.athabasc <burt.783368171@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> <jqbCynrnE.LoG@netcom.com> <CzDqrM.6CA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 09:31:02 GMT
Lines: 19

In article <CzDqrM.6CA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <jqbCynrnE.LoG@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>
>>*My* intuition tells me that all these anti-strong AI arguments are so obviously
>>and trivially flawed as to barely deserve a response.
>
>If they're so obviously and trivially flawed, then why do so many
>people not see the obvious and trivial flaws, expecially when
>comp.ai.phil is full of people who ought to be able to point out
>the flaws and explain why they're flaws?
>
>I don't mean this as a rhetorical question; I'd like to know
>what you think the problem is.

The fact that you seriously ask this question might be taken as a hint
as to where the problem lies.
-- 
<J Q B>
