🚀 go-pugleaf

|
|Somehow, Shannon and McCarthy managed to get quite famous enough,
|anyway...and for somewhat more substantial contributions.  I don't think they
|felt the need to make a career out of a one paragraph straw-man idea.
|
|0) "Those who don't read the literature are doomed to rewrite it"
|
|1) "Those who do read the literature, but have nothing to add, are grateful
|for those in class 0)"

... appeared as an echo of previous slurs on Searle's professional
contributions.

This is certainly ironic.

First, Searle has had quite a distinguished and productive career as a
philosopher independent of anything he has written about AI.

Second, it is evident to anyone who has done some homework where
Searle's concerns originated. Indeed, he himself adopted the
functionalist view of meaning early on, and moved to a different view
subsequently.  He has even gone to the trouble of writing a book to
discuss the latter point of view!


I think that conduct in this newsgroup of late has been disgraceful.  I
strongly doubt that several respondants have read the article(s) in
question, and it is quite clear that most have failed to understand
what they say (never mind arguments about whether the position
presented is correct or defensible). And now it has moved from the
level of sophistry contributed by the uninformed to the higher plane of
attacks on Searle's professional standing mounted by the profoundly
ignorant.  I think the readership is entitled to some relief.

While I doubt that this was its intent, I sometimes believe Searle's
Minds, Brains, and Programs has become an intelligence test for the AI
community. This is unfortunate.

	Tom