Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: tt, comp.ai.phil etc...
Message-ID: <CzzsEs.Dwr@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <OZ.94Nov18233146@nexus.yorku.ca> <CzqIqG.2AM@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <OZ.94Nov27201942@nexus.yorku.ca>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 19:20:52 GMT
Lines: 48
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:96526 comp.ai.philosophy:22759 sci.philosophy.meta:15082

In article <OZ.94Nov27201942@nexus.yorku.ca> oz@nexus.yorku.ca (ozan s. yigit) writes:
>Jeff Dalton [on TT]:
>
>   >fiercely defended where?
>
>   Well, in comp.ai.phil, just for instance.
>
>i think you are exaggerating. there has certainly been some fierce
>exchanges in comp.ai.phil, but i cannot recall one in defence of the TT.
>[i may still have several years worth of archives somewhere in case you
>wish to prove me wrong :)].

Then you shouldn't have much trouble finding some cases, then.
I've been in several TT exchanges here, and there must be some
others as well.

BTW, much of the "giant table lookup machine" arguments are fairly
directly related to the TT, as are a number of points in the "rocks
and FSAs" dispute.  Moravec and McCullough's mapping arguments also
support the TT.

> in any case, it seems to me that this supposed
>"fierce defence of TT" is being held against every pro-ai poster in
>comp.ai.philosophy, even if they have never offered an opinion on this
>matter. i think this is unfair. 

I can recall two, very brief, remarks against the TT by a "pro-ai"
poster.

>   >the only actual defense is an article by dennett. 
>
>   Really?  Where did he defend it, BTW?  (I have no Dennett handy.)
>
>Daniel Dennett, "Can machines think?"  in (M. Shafto, ed) _How We Know_.
>Harper & Row, 1985.

But not in his own books (which I happen to have all of, while
lacking the one you suggest)?

>   >give some real references to the literature. 
>
>   Maybe I'll try to start noting them.
>
>that would be appreciated.

I hope so.

-- jeff
