[Wittrs] Re: Dennett's Intentional Stance
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:58:12 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> Well, it turns out that you haven't read that target article either!
Well thanks. I always thought that we were supposed to approach
debating in the spirit of the principle of charity
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity> . I really don't
see the need for that kind of insult.
> Searle refuted strong AI ...
Yet many respected people say that Searle did not refute anything.
> That misses the whole point of the original target article which
> focusses on the exact thesis of strong AI.
Before that article appeared, there was no "thesis of strong AI". The
term "strong AI" was coined by Searle, and some would say it was
introduced as a strawman that Searle could attempt to knock down.
> The point about the program ex hypothesii instantiated by the wall
> is designed to show that a systems reply changes the subject to the
> point where we no longer have a thesis (strong AI was supposeed to
> be a candidate) for distinguishing minds from nonminds.
I don't think Searle even mentioned the Systems Reply in his discussion
about wordstar on the wall (in his book "The Rediscovery of the Mind").
Regards,
Neil
Other related posts:
