Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!newspump.sol.net!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: <jqbE0KsBz.Ey9@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <328304E4.7234@dbo.mts.dec.com> <jqbE0KnyM.7LA@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 23:38:23 GMT
Lines: 20
Sender: jqb@netcom23.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.neural-nets:34451 comp.ai.philosophy:48510

In article <jqbE0KnyM.7LA@netcom.com>, Jim Balter <jqb@netcom.com> wrote:
>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
              ^^
Did I really make that slip?  (blush)

Some (including me) might take it that this is evidence that I have
sarcastically thought of it that way on occasion.  For a behaviorist, though,
there is no such proposition for which this could be evidence.  So much for
behaviorism.

>dualist argues for Strong AI but, as he says, he's a functionalist at heart).
>-- 
><J Q B>



-- 
<J Q B>

