"Lee Daniel Crocker" <lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net (none)> writes:
> > There are several critiques of these views, such as the devastating
> > counter-argument of philosopher John Searle of UC Berkeley, ...
> > None of the recent books grapple with this critique, possibly
> > because it is so difficult to refute.
>
> ...Or possibly because Hofstadter, Dennett, and others have so
> thoroughly demolished Searle's fallacies that nobody has to take
> them seriously anymore?
It seems like a lot of people think Searle "killed" the area with his apparently elegant arguments, while of course most people in the area regard Searly as silly. After hearing Searle speak to a group of neuroscientists, I can understand it. He was wonderfully persuasive, and to a non computer-scientist what he said most likely sounded very reasonable. Meanwhile, I was totally unconvinced about his anti-AI arguments (he had some other good points, the man is not 100% evil :-)
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y