Authors:	Eliasmith, Chris
Title:	Mind games : a reply to Daniela Hill
Online publication date:	11-Nov-2016
Year of first publication:	2015
Language:	english
Abstract:	In her discussion of my original article, Hill reconstructs an argument I may have been making, argues that the distinction between natural and artificial minds is not exclusive, and suggests that my reliance on behaviour as a determiner of “mindedness” is a dangerous slip back to philosophical behaviourism. In reply, I note that the logical fallacy of which I’m accused (circular reasoning) is not the one present in the reconstruction of my argument (besides the point), and offer a non-fallacious reconstruction. More importantly, I note that logical analysis does not seem appropriate for the discussion in the target article. I then agree that natural and artificial minds do not make up two discrete categories for mindedness. Finally, I note that my research program belies any behaviourist motivations, and reiterate that even though behaviour is typically important for identifying minds, I do not suggest that it is a substitute for theory. However, the target article is not about such theory, but about the near-term likelihood of sophisticated artificial minds
DDC:	100 Philosophie 100 Philosophy
Institution:	Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
Department:	FB 05 Philosophie und Philologie
Place:	Mainz
ROR:	https://ror.org/023b0x485
DOI:	http://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-445
URN:	urn:nbn:de:hebis:77-publ-551621
Version:	Published version
Publication type:	Buchbeitrag
License:	In Copyright
Information on rights of use:	https://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
Citation:	Open MIND Metzinger, Thomas
Pages or article number:	Kap. 12(R)
Publisher:	MIND Group
Publisher place:	Frankfurt am Main
Issue date:	2015
Publisher URL:	http://dx.doi.org/10.15502/9783958570788
Publisher DOI:	10.15502/9783958570788
Appears in collections:	JGU-Publikationen