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: Minsky's new article (was: Roger Penrose's new book)
Message-ID: <jqbCzK9Hn.E45@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <39bg6v$9if@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <39d8g2$dlm@coli-gate.coli.uni-sb.de> <1994Nov7.142110.22111@unix.brighton.ac.uk> <CzFoDz.84L@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 10:08:11 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <CzFoDz.84L@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <1994Nov7.142110.22111@unix.brighton.ac.uk> mjs14@unix.brighton.ac.uk (shute) writes:
>
>>(All of this, of course, would have to be reviewed if the dualists turn
>>out to have other future cards to play :-)
>
>Do you actually think that every critic/skeptic of Minsky or AI
>is a dualist?
>
>Does anyone else think they're all dualists?
>
>If so, that would explain why their views are always treated with
>such contempt.

Why do you always say *always*, Jeff?  Why are you always so contemptuous
of critics of Penrose et. al?  Oh, maybe you aren't always.  And maybe you
sometimes express in detail exactly where your contempt (or disagreement)
comes from.  And perhaps something similar is true of those critics.

Perhaps you can sense why I think your tone here, which you so often express,
deserves contempt.
-- 
<J Q B>
