From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!spdcc!das.harv Tue Nov 26 12:30:46 EST 1991
Article 1422 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:10188 sci.philosophy.tech:1011 comp.ai.philosophy:1422
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!spdcc!das.harv
ard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!brauer!zeleny
>From: zeleny@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Daniel Dennett (was Re: Commenting on the pos
Message-ID: <1991Nov19.183901.5640@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 91 23:38:59 GMT
References: <14920@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1991Nov19.101612.5603@husc3.harvard.edu> <15018@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 101
Nntp-Posting-Host: brauer.harvard.edu

In article <15018@castle.ed.ac.uk> 
cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>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.

CM:
>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.

How convenient that you weren't interested in discussing, or even debating
the issues; your choice of sarcastic malediction offers me an excellent
opportunity to expose you for a pompous, bombastic twit that you are.  I
notice that you haven't accused me of that deadly sin, Cartesianism; is
that due to the fact that you are embarrassed to reiterate your puerile,
pseudointellectual rantings in front of someone who actually may have read
Descartes?  Of course, you fare no better in your chosen venue: the trouble
with your *tu quoque* is that it results in the same kind of standoff that
you were decrying above; the trouble with you, as exemplified below, is
that your expression by far outruns your comprehension.

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?

CM:
>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!

Like I said, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.  My
statement above indeed contains not one, but two arguments, even if you are
far too dense to discern them.  Rorty is a nihilist by persuasion, in that
he denies any objective basis for either factual or value judgments; ipso
facto he is in no position to be able to tell the difference between a
charlatan and an ignoramus.  The task of determining Heidegger's views
about technology is left as an exercise for the reader.

CM:
>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!

Feel free to respond after you've taken remedial reading lessons.

>-- 
>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

'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139                                     :
: (617) 661-8151                                                     :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'


