From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!mips!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!ucunix.s Tue Nov 19 11:10:30 EST 1991
Article 1357 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca alt.postmodern:80 talk.philosophy.misc:185 comp.ai.philosophy:1357
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!mips!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!ucunix.s
an.uc.edu!millerjx
>From: millerjx@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Justin W. Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern,talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is "logical analysis" worth knowing?
Keywords: ai,ethics,butterfly,zombie,logic
Message-ID: <1991Nov17.202027.27932@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Date: 17 Nov 91 20:20:27 GMT
References: <centaur.690241662@cc.gatech.edu> <1991Nov16.011947.29575@ucunix.san.uc.edu> <9111170903.20552@mydog.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati
Lines: 44

In article <9111170903.20552@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>centaur@terminus.gatech.edu (Anthony G. Francis) writes:
>| >I'm sorry. I can't convince myself that this argument has any 
>| >validity. In fact, I can't convince myself that it really means anything.
>| >I do not think that it is appropriate to appropriate the metaphors of
>| >hunting and killing, trophies and idols, worship and religion, and
>| >"real life" and "zombies" and apply them to the process of the development
>| >of language and the development of complex linguistic systems. These
>| >are clever metaphors with pretty images, devoid of any useful content.
>
>millerjx@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Justin W. Miller) writes:
>| I would have to agree with Anthony's statement, in the exact words he put it.
>| I, too, fail to understand how this type of philosophy is concerned with AI
>| EXCEPT where the AI begins to develop human qualities-- and that is a mere
>| technicality worthy of only brief mention. That's my analysis, anyway. True, I
>| find the first statement interesting, but better left to alt.philosophy.
>
>Could you all clarify something?  In my world -- the democratic
>vistas of the working class -- if somebody says "I don't know
>what you're talking about" it generally means "Please explain
>what you mean."  However, I have rubbed up against the academic
>world enough to know that "I don't know what you're talking 
>about" in certain situations can mean "I do know what you're 
>talking about, and you're full of crap -- in other words, I have 
>the power to judge your argument and you, and find both wanting."
>
>Often, I've started explaining something only to find out that
>the second meaning, not the first, was the gist of the "I don't
>know what you're talking about."  If you're completely satis-
>fied with your understanding of my article, by all means just say
>so.  Otherwise I shall be tempted to further tax your patience.
>
>--
>Gordon Fitch          *        ...!mydog.panix.com!gcf

Justin millerjx@ucunix.san.uc.edu responds:
By no means when I say that the article, in my opinion, has little to do with
the development of AI, do I also mean that YOU have nothing to do with it. I
did not implicitly or otherwise express anything to the effect of 'You're full
of crap.' I have neither the ability nor the desire to judge you. I think the
real direction of the discussion should head toward AI, and was only attempting
to narrow down the factors in the discussion so we do not wander through
unrelated material. I welcome any comments.
-justin


