Talk:Intuition pump

I noticed that this article does not contain any citations or general refences, so I added the unreferenced tag. --Stan the fisher (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know how to edit this, but I'm pretty much certain it's not just me that can't make sense of 'In the case of the Chinese Room argument, Dennett argues that the intuitive notion that a person manipulating symbols seems inadequate to constitute any form of consciousness ignores the requirements of memory, recall, emotion, world knowledge and rationality that the system would actually need to pass such a test. ' It really doesn't make sense, does it? I don't mean the ideology, I mean the grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.180.202 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"In Consciousness Explained, he uses the term pejoratively to describe John Searle's Chinese room thought experiment, [...]" I was just watching a talk of Daniel Dennet in which he explicitly says, that he did not meant the term pejoratively. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EJsD-3jtXz0&t=250 Watch 40 seconds from that point on and you have a direct source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.13.39.126 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

'Sphexishness'
It's a great word, but it's pretty obscure. I think it would be worth considering replacing both it and the other 'listicated' terms in the final sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZephyrP (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)