Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!newsfeed.rice.edu!news.sesqui.net!news.coral-energy.com!newsrelay.courtave.net!news.inetnebr.com!midwestcs.com!news.dsndata.com!wetware!news.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Is the "Strong AI" position intellectually defensible ?
Message-ID: <jqbE0KnyM.7LA@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <328304E4.7234@dbo.mts.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 22:03:57 GMT
Lines: 24
Sender: jqb@netcom23.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.neural-nets:34448 comp.ai.philosophy:48492

In article <328304E4.7234@dbo.mts.dec.com>,
Selwyn Akintola  <akintola.selwyn@dbo.mts.dec.com> wrote:
>Is the "Strong AI" position intellectually defensible ?

Of course, lacking an uncontroversial disproof.

>Yes I am writing a paper and I would value both your personal thoughts
>and pointers to any good reference texts. When the paper is complete I
>will post a web address where it may be reviewed.

I suggest
	http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/misc/strong.ai.searle
and
	http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/misc/searle.strong.ai.1985

for an in depth treatment of the issue.  And of course Douglas Hofstadter's
"Reflections" on Searle's "Mind, Brain, and programs" in _The Mind's I_.

See also David Chalmers' arguments for Strong AI and against Searle's Chinese
Room in _The Unconcious Mind_ (it sometimes surprises people that Chalmers the
dualist argues for Strong AI but, as he says, he's a functionalist at heart).
-- 
<J Q B>

