Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <CzqIqG.2AM@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <39posv$mr0@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca> <CzFr3J.990@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <OZ.94Nov18233146@nexus.yorku.ca>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 19:13:27 GMT
Lines: 25
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:96214 comp.ai.philosophy:22528 sci.philosophy.meta:14975

In article <OZ.94Nov18233146@nexus.yorku.ca> oz@nexus.yorku.ca (ozan s. yigit) writes:
>Jeff Dalton:
>
>   I agree.  Nonetheless, the TT is fiercely defended.
>
>fiercely defended where?

Well, in comp.ai.phil, just for instance.

>the only actual defense is an article by dennett. 

Really?  Where did he defend it, BTW?  (I have no Dennett handy.)

>give some real references to the literature. 

Maybe I'll try to start noting them.

>and try to remember that comp.ai.phil is not an adequate sample of the
>ai/cog-sci/philosophy community.

I remember it and know it well.

-- jd


