From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu Mon Dec  9 10:47:48 EST 1991
Article 1838 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu
>From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Dennett on Edelman--what a loss
Message-ID: <58160@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 4 Dec 91 01:36:49 GMT
References: <57730@netnews.upenn.edu> <1991Nov29.050859.21552@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <57864@netnews.upenn.edu> <1991Dec2.073924.14411@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 50
Nntp-Posting-Host: libra.wistar.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)

In article <1991Dec2.073924.14411@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, chalmers@bronze (David Chalmers) writes:
>But nothing he is doing is so vastly different in kind from a lot of
>work in connectionism and computational neuroscience, so it's
>difficult to see why he sets himself up as such an iconoclast.

In a previous post, I mentioned an easy reason: he has good reason
to think that he's prior to much of this research.

>>My own bafflement at the lightness with which you view Dennett on Edelman.
>>It seems fairly ugly to me.  Do you think I was overstating my annoyance,
>>repeated below, regarding Dennett on Edelman re continuity?

>Hey, it's only a footnote, and Dennett on Edelman is very much a sideline
>to Dennett on consciousness.  Certainly the footnote would have been
>better omitted, and maybe Dennett's brief dismissal of Edelman's point
>of view on continuity is over-hasty.

I've read it one more time, trying to be generous, thinking "you know
weemba, maybe you blew this one".  It didn't work.

I mean, do I have to drag out other better known ugliosities, and rate
them in comparison?  If we give Minksy and Papert PERCEPTRONS:
	There is no reason to suppose that any of these virtues
	carry over to the many layered version. Nevertheless,
	we consider it to be an important research problem to
	elucidate (or reject) our intuitive judgment that the
	extension is sterile.
a 10, then I'd say Dennett on Edelman ranks about a 6.  He's nowhere
as subtle or sneaky.  He has no bona fide *mathematical* theorems to
back him up and give rock solid "meaning" to position.  He's coedited
a book with the king of gosh-wows.  I bet he eats quiche when no one's
looking.

I give in.  You win.  I've removed the word "total" from the subject.

>				       But should I write to my senator
>about it?  Edelman's blanket dismissal of entire fields, based on
>flimsy arguments,

Based on haste.  He had a trilogy to write.

>		   strikes me as worse.

Dismissing connectionism--even if it can only make him look stupid--is
not in the same league as getting personal about who smart Hopfield,
Rumelhart, and so on are.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)




