🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <25621@cup.portal.com> Nagle@cup.portal.com (John - Nagle) writes:
>
>     We had this discussion last year.  Everybody in the field has
>heard it altogether too many times.  Could we get the philosophy
>out of comp.ai, please?

I was here for last year's discussion, and it was obvious that not everybody
had heard the arguments enough times, or at least had not paid attention.
Quite a few people for example, talked about Searle's Chinese Room arguement
as if it had something to do with translation (it doesn't).

Should we get the philosophy out of comp.ai?  Definately, and the CogSci,
and the math, and the EE, and the ... CompSci. ;)  Alot of people see
overlap between ai and phil.  If you don't, simply add a subject line
or two to your kill file until the talk dies down.  Or call for the
creation of a new group to handle this discussion.  Until then the calls
for help and calls for papers and calls for participants will be mixed
with some real discussion. :)

Dean Hougen
--
"The world move on a womans hips.  She start to walk and she shake it up.
     - Talking Heads