[Wittrs] Re: Dualism Cooties: Ontologically Basic Ambiguity

  • From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:29:05 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "jrstern" <jrstern@> wrote:
> > I mean, we don't really know what is meant by "baseball", so some
> > guys get together and specify it, and then we all play.
> Similarly, we should just work on the principles of how to build  an
> artificial cognitive system.  All of the talk about physicalism,
> reductionism, dualism, etc, is just a distraction.
> Regards,
> Neil

Searle's argument is what calls these issues up so it is the distraction. But 
most researchers, from people like Dehaene to Minsky, simply disregard Searle's 
CRA these days from everything I've seen.


Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: