"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yllXWiBvUNPBFwTN at longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <8d8494cf.0409060842.c5a0327 at posting.google.com>, dan
> michaels <feedbackdroids at yahoo.com> writes
> discussions which bear on the "correct psychological stance". The fact
> that Michaels makes such great efforts to "try to ignore the extremist
> viewpoints" is basically no more than a frank but ironic statement that
> he ignores all the relevant science (and philosophy) because **he
> doesn't think it relevant!** But that's his basic problem. It's idiocy
David, through your own words you are not one to talk about ignoring
philosophy, since you seem to do the same thing. Are you more qualified to
discuss philosophy than I am? I bet I do a lot more of it than I do. Yet
you dismiss any philosophical discussion that might criticize your precious
I have always found it odd that Glen referenced someone pointing out what
was wrong with cognitive science who pointed out that a major problem was
that philosophy was being ignored ... yet he and you and Wolf constantly
seem to argue that philosophy is unimportant and should be ignored, and
constantly ignore any philosophical arguments.
> Ironically, not only is that false, it's egregiously hypocritical.
> Michaels can't see the extent to which he (like Zick etc) expresses his
> own dogmatic ignorance in c.a.p (and tries to recruit others to share in
> his ignorance), he can't see the extent to which this amply demonstrates
> his "intellectual dishonesty". Here, he's second only to Zick amongst
> current c.a.p posters when it comes to demonstrating this quite absurd,
> self-defeating, pitiful lack of insight.
Oh, please. Lester and Dan and Eray may or may not be dogmatists, but that
does not defend you from the charge of dogmatism. And if you doubt, simply
look at how you react to the not-completely-converted patty when she dares
to disagree with your behaviourist teachings.
> Given that this is one of the best understood creatures on the planet,
> is this speculation, or has Michaels been browsing some of the many
> excellent website devoted to the genetics, anatomy, physiology and
> behaviour of this nematode? This of course is a rhetorical question as
> Michaels has made it abundantly clear what he wants to use c.a.p for
> (and it certainly isn't to contribute towards a better understanding of
> notion of "AI").
David, you are not qualified to dictate what must or must not contribute to
AI. You are, to the best of my knowledge, not familiar enough with EITHER
the philosophy of mind/AI OR with computer science to understand what those
fields require in order to produce AI.