From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Systems Reply I (repost perhaps)
Keywords: AI Searle Dickhead Barf
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:36:05 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

In article <6589@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>line up a subdirectory with the name of the subdirectory!
>
>Look at Putnam's _Reason, Truth, and History_ for his cats
>and cherries argument.

I don't have it handy, However, what is wrong with my
saying that computers can do the same kind of lining
up as people can? (If you cannot explain this to me
then you really don't understand putnam's argument either!)
>
>>My thoughts are an intricate part & parcel of my
>>behaviour, just because it is not externally visible
>>does not mean that it is not behaviour! 
>
>We have very different idea of what "behavior" means.
>Moreover your definition does not seem to be the one in
>general use.
>
Ok, I do not mean that thoughts are strictly behaviour, BUT
without the thoughts that do go on in my head my behaviour
would be very different! There is no way that you would get
this kind of behaviour out of me without thought. You could
argue that I am having a epileptic spasm, and hitting
just the right keys, but I do not think that that argument
will take you very far.

>>I think that
>>you missunderstood my point, just because we cannot
>>explain how its done in humans - does that mean that
>>it cannot be duplicated by a physical system?
>
>No, but if we have good reasons to conclude that it can't
>be duplicated by a computer, we still have these good reasons
>even if we can't say how it's done in humans.
>
>Unless you are willing to accept this point, there is no
>point in continuing to discuss these matters with me,
>because I am never going to agree that showing how it's
>done in humans is necessary.

I agree with your point, *IF WE HAVE EVIDENCE* that it
cannot be done by computer. This evidence is sorely
lacking. I realize that by stating the above I did not
prove that it can be done, to actually prove it either
way we must have evidence that (a) humans have something
specific AND REAL, which computers do not. (b) computers
have all the necessary requirements for mind!
	Now to flesh out the arguments it IS necessary
that we know what we are talking about specifically,
and that means definitions!
>
>>>Quite simply, the arguments are _not_: machines are not people,
>>>therefore they do not understand.
>>>
>>I beg to differ, as evidenced by all those arguments about
>>intentionality, and agency on the net recently, which very
>>conveniently disqulifies certain things from having these
>>properties by mere hand waving!
>
>Quote the arguments you have in mind, because I haven't
>any that fit your description.  

Mr. Zeleny's arguments about agency come to mind, or
have you missed those? There where a number of them,
such as why a virus is an agent, while a cloud is not.
>
[airships & requirements for flight - deleted]
>That is just false.  Eg, Searle has an argument that computers
>lack required causal powers (compare to "an argument that it's
>wrongly shaped").  

Searle has not even shown that humans have the "required
causal powers", he just took a word out of thin air and
he expects us to believe a bare naked statement like that.
I am sorry, this is where Searle's mediocrity really shows
thru.
>
>>>>What if I showed you that people are machines?
>>>
>>>Depends on just what you showed.  But look at Searle's remarks
>>>on "meat machines" first.  Indeed, I recommend (again) the first
>>>Reith Lecture, reprinted as chapter 1 of his _Minds, Machines,
>>>and Programs_ (or some similar title).
>>>
>>Nothing that Searle says proves that people are anything
>>other than machines! Granted, machines with extraordinary
>>capabilities, but still machines!
>
>This shows that I was right to recommend the Reith Lectures, though
>it's actually the 2nd one in which he discusses meat machines.
>
>You seem to think Searle is trying to show people are not machines
>That is wrong.  Searle is not trying to prove people are not machines.
>He says they _are_ machines.  He also says machines can have minds.
>
Look, you are trying to say that computers are machines
therefore they cannot have minds. You say, Searle also
believe that people are machines, but they have minds.
As someone said, "It's a fine point, that makes no
distinction!"
	And unless you can come up with distinction
between the two I also feel there is no point in
arguing, since you seem to have your mind pretty well
made up. You have certainly convinced yourself that
there is some fundamental difference between
human machines and computer machines.
>-- jd


-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy