From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!yarra-glen.aaii.oz.au!dnk Tue Nov 19 11:10:19 EST 1991
Article 1339 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:9945 sci.philosophy.tech:963 comp.ai.philosophy:1339
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!yarra-glen.aaii.oz.au!dnk
>From: dnk@yarra-glen.aaii.oz.au (David Kinny)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Daniel Dennett (was Re: Commenting on the posting
Message-ID: <1991Nov16.014015.1074@yarra-glen.aaii.oz.au>
Date: 16 Nov 91 01:40:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: yarra-gl.1991Nov16.014015.1074
References: <5639@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1991Nov14.223348.4076@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Nov15.003438.11323@grebyn.com> <1991Nov15.160741.5495@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute
Lines: 33

zeleny@walsh.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>In article <1991Nov15.003438.11323@grebyn.com> 
>fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Oceanstar) writes:

>>I asked Mikhail Zeleny to elaborate on his labeling of Dennett "a
>>charlatan," but he wrote me back that he will only do so if I make
>>it a "public" request.  I puzzled over this one for a couple of
>>days, and decided, finally, not to pursue the reasons behind his need
>>for me to go public.  Instead I will just comply, and ask again:
>>What did you mean, Mikhail?  I read enough mind-brain books, that
>>I'd like to hear other people's guidelines for telling the wheat
>>from the chaff.

>My guideline is very simple: if you see someone offer a reductive argument
>purporting to explain the properties of mind, such as consciousness,
>cognition, and intentionality, in terms of the alleged computational
>properties of the brain, you may conclude that he is a charlatan or an
>ignoramus.
>
> [ unconvincing justification and unsightly .signature omitted ]

Ah yes, that most convincing of guidelines:

	"If you see someone offer an argument that conflicts with *my*
	 dearly-held beliefs, you may conclude that he is a charlatan,
	 worthy only of scorn and ridicule.

Surely you can come up with something better than this pathetic effort.
Try arguing for your position in a way that doesn't take its inevitable
correctness as a given.

David


