From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Tue Apr  7 23:24:33 EDT 1992
Article 4963 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: SHRDLU's mind
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Apr6.023638.518@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <1992Apr6.182533.109@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Apr7.002306.9823@news.media.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Apr7.211654.7694@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:16:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.002306.9823@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.182533.109@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>>
>>Varying degrees of sophistication have no bearing on the question of
>>presence or absense.  A small mind is still a mind, just as a small ball
>>is still a ball.
>
>And a small giant is still a giant, etc.  Is a small large X still an
>X?  Yes, I suppose, if all X's are Y's (for all X and Y), which
>appears to be the thesis here.
>
I'm not sure what bearing your use of contrary relational terms has on
this discussion. Are you attempting to cast doubt on the (analytic,
as far as I can tell) assertion that a small ball is still a ball. The
problem with analogizing "mind" to terms like "giant" and "big" is that 
"mind" has no such obvious relational connotations. If you think it
does (i.e., if you think there was a point to your apparent non-sequiter)
please make them explicit.

>


-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


