Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Penrose & Banach-Tarski/Axiom of Choice
Message-ID: <CzqMMr.3wK@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: <jqbCynrnE.LoG@netcom.com> <CzDqrM.6CA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <jqbCzK7rq.CHI@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 20:37:38 GMT
Lines: 40

In article <jqbCzK7rq.CHI@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>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.

Where then?  Or will you not say?

I find it curious that, for instance, some critics of Searle don't
seem to think the systems reply is enough.  For instance, Alan Bundy
(in the AI Dept here in Edinburgh) once gave a talk in which he said
the systems reply and the robot reply had to be combined *in the
right order*.  It seems obvious to *me* that the systems reply alone
is sufficient.

Now the anti-strong AI arguments might well *be* obviously and
trivially flawed.  That's why I said my question wasn't rhetorical.
Moreover, I think at least some of them are obviously and trivially 
flawed.  That's why I'm cusious as to why there's not more agreement
on what the obvious and trivial flaws are.

-- jd





