Philip Goetz wrote:
On 11/17/06, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was saying that *because* (for independent reasons) these people's
usage of terms like "intelligence" is so disconnected from commonsense
usage (they idealize so extremely that the sense of the word no longer
bears a reasonable connection to the original) *therefore* the situation
is akin to the one that obtains for Model Theory or Rings.
I am saying that these folks are trying to have their cake and eat it
too: they idealize "intelligence" into something so disconnected from
the real world usage that, really, they ought not to use the term, but
should instead invent another one like "ooblifience" to describe the
thing they are proving theorems about.
But then, having so distorted the meaning of the term, they go back and
start talking about the conclusions they derived from their math as if
those conclusions applied to the real world thing that in commonsense
parlance we call "intelligence". At that point they are doing what I
claimed a Model Theorist would be doing if she started talking about a
kid's model airplane as if Model Theory applied to it.
This is exactly what John Searle does with the term "consciousness".
Exactly!!
Richard Loosemore
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
