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!agate!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!bboyer Tue Nov 19 11:10:34 EST 1991
Article 1365 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:10018 sci.philosophy.tech:975 comp.ai.philosophy:1365
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!agate!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!bboyer
>From: bboyer@orion.oac.uci.edu (Bruce Boyer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Daniel Dennett (was Re: Commenting on the posting
Message-ID: <29272997.28788@orion.oac.uci.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 91 02:46:47 GMT
References: <1991Nov15.003438.11323@grebyn.com> <1991Nov15.160741.5495@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Nov16.014015.1074@yarra-glen.aaii.oz.au>
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Lines: 44

In article <1991Nov16.014015.1074@yarra-glen.aaii.oz.au> dnk@yarra-glen.aaii.oz.au (David Kinny) writes:
>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
(Re. Dennett)
>>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
I agree with your objection based on prejudice. But worse, as I understand
his approach, Dennett is anything but a reductionist. His point is that
we take an intentional stance toward systems sufficiently complex that
other stances (physical and design stances) don't yield sufficient 
understanding. We then result to attributions of beliefs, desires, etc.

He does suggest that we can take the intentional stance toward small
subsystems, and then look for design accounts of what they do. But
intentionality talk is not to be reduced to anything else.



-- 
*******************
Bruce L. Boyer
orion.oac.uci.edu!bboyer
*******************


