"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZuetkAFC3XPBFwXn at longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <%67%c.8937$lP4.670682 at news20.bellglobal.com>, Allan C
> Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie at yahoo.ca> writes
> >"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
> >> incarnate!
> >David, through your own words you are not one to talk about ignoring
> >philosophy, since you seem to do the same thing.
>> How things seem to you may just be something you need to work on.
But I think that that would be something that you would have to demonstrate.
>> > Are you more qualified to
> >discuss philosophy than I am?
>> Almost certainly.
Almost certainly? What are your qualifications?
> Furthermore, I certainly know how to recognize
> philosophy, and I can tell the difference between philosophy and
> inconsequential metaphysics.
Your last statement only proves that you do not know what philosophy is.
(Hint: metaphysics is a valid philosophical concern.)
>> > I bet I do a lot more of it than I do. Yet
> >you dismiss any philosophical discussion that might criticize your
>> You seem to pay about as much attention to what you write as you do to
> what others write.
Says the person who'll post 5 copies of the same post to correct HIS
> >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.
>> That's because *you've* ignored the philosophy.
No, I haven't ... which includes a discussion of what makes an action
intelligent, which I have yet to see from the behaviourists.
> >> 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
> >> his ignorance), he can't see the extent to which this amply
> >> 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
> >does not defend you from the charge of dogmatism. And if you doubt,
> >look at how you react to the not-completely-converted patty when she
> >to disagree with your behaviourist teachings.
>> I suggest you look more carefully into the notion of "dogma".
I suggest that you look into your own actions and see how they are, in fact,
>> Do you have any idea what I was referring to in the above and related
> posts? The answer is no.
> What was the key *philosophical* concept which
> was referred to (and illustrated) in my responses to the above
THERE ISN'T ONE. You have made NO real philosophical points. All you've
done is a rant against intensionality that you have not justified nor have
successfully defended against my charge that intensionality is WHAT WE DO.
> >David, you are not qualified to dictate what must or must not contribute
> >AI. You are, to the best of my knowledge, not familiar enough with EITHE
> >the philosophy of mind/AI OR with computer science to understand what
> >fields require in order to produce AI.
>> Apart from your above paragraph being yet another non sequitur,
Which you, of course, never do ...
So far, all you've shown in this post is that you are almost certainly a
deliberate hypocrite ...
> to the
> best of my knowledge, the best of your knowledge doesn't allow you to
> make reliable assessments and judgements.
Ah, I disagree with the great David, and so I must be unable to make proper
judgements. Again, if you want to see how dogmatic you are, simply look at
your reactions to patty ...
> I've said this repeatedly in
> response to your telling us how things "seem" to you, yet once again you
> just show how you ignore the practical advice I've given you which might
> well have a) deterred you from writing the above and b) helped you to
> write something better informed and more useful.
David, the only "practical advice" you've given me is to read and re-read
your essay -- whose philosophical examinations are limited entirely to
quotes from people who are actually philosophers -- in the hopes that I
might eventually agree with you. You have yet to address any actual
objection I have made. At least Glen and Wolf occasionally address issues.