From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!cam Tue Nov 26 12:30:39 EST 1991
Article 1410 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:10163 sci.philosophy.tech:1002 comp.ai.philosophy:1410
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!cam
>From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Daniel Dennett (was Re: Commenting on the pos
Message-ID: <15018@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 19 Nov 91 19:16:51 GMT
References: <1991Nov15.160741.5495@husc3.harvard.edu> <14920@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1991Nov19.101612.5603@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Edinburgh University
Lines: 54

In article <1991Nov19.101612.5603@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <14920@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>In article <1991Nov15.160741.5495@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>>zeleny@walsh.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>>My guideline is very simple: if you see someone offer a reductive argument
>>>purporting to explain the properties of mind ....
>>>in terms of the .... properties of the brain, you may conclude that 
>>>he is a charlatan or an ignoramus.

CM:
>>Fascinating! I have a simple guideline too: any supposed philosopher who
>>finds the arguments of Penrose convincing is a fool or an ignoramus.
>>This is a most entertaining new way of conducting philosophical debates,
>>but being new to it, I'm not quite sure how to proceed from this
>>hilarious standoff.

MZ:
>You might proceed by offering a justification for your views.  Please note
>that when you are supposing someone a philosopher, it might be prudent to
>examine his arguments, instead of ridiculing his conclusions.

Excellent! This is just the kind response which my statement was
designed to elicit from you. And fortunately you have failed to take
the final step, which is to realise how well your criticism applies to
what _you_ have been writing recently. Fortunately? Yes, the
philosopher must fail to take the final step in order to be deluded
into "digging the pit", i.e., criticising a parody of himself.  The
next part of the trap is to persuade him to jump into the pit.

CM:
>>By the way, for those who find the ideas of Daniel Dennett interesting,
>>there is an encouraging review of his new book by Rorty in the current
>>issue of the London Review of Books.

MZ:
>This, of course, assumes that Rorty still has some credibility in the
>English-speaking world.  Can a nihilist tell the difference between a
>charlatan and an ignoramus? Would you buy an artificial intelligence, 
>or any other form of technology, from a follower of Heidegger?

There you go! This is the first time you have mentioned Rorty, and you
do nothing more than call him names. "Please note that ... it might be
prudent to examine his arguments, instead of ridiculing ..."  Plonk!
Straight into the pit!

When trapping bears in a pit one has to dig the pit oneself. When
trapping philosophers one can sometimes persuade the philosopher to
dig the pit himself, and then to jump into it. Very satisfying!
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205


