From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Thu Feb 20 15:20:34 EST 1992
Article 3710 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3710 sci.philosophy.tech:2139
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Implementation (was: Re: Causes and Reasons)
Message-ID: <6183@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 13 Feb 92 21:14:51 GMT
References: <6519@pkmab.se> <1992Jan29.005249.10405@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <6538@pkmab.se>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 67

In article <6538@pkmab.se> ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) writes:
>In article <1992Jan29.005249.10405@aisb.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>In article <6519@pkmab.se> ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) writes:
>>>In article <6026@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>>>In article <6467@pkmab.se> ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) writes:

>>David Chalmers seems to be thinking of something else, something
>>where the allowed implementations are severely constrained.
>
>He not only seems to be doing that, he has actually _said_ so, in
><1992Jan22.202459.23291@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, except that I wouldn't
>say "severely" before "constrained":
>
>!For now, I've just been concerned with spelling out *a* fairly broad,
>!notion of implementation such that all implementations of a program
>!have the required properties in common.  This surely yields a strong
>!"strong AI", strong enough that e.g. Searle surely wouldn't accept it.
>
>I've seen no reaction from you on that message.

Probably because I have't had time to deal with all the messages in
this newsgroup.  Indeed, there are people flaming me for answering
too many of them.

But the issue of implementation was one I want to follow up, and
I will try to do so briefly.

What I want to know is why does David Chalmers need his restricted
notion of implementation?

1. It limits his conclusions.

For instance, he doesn't conclude that if we write an understanding
program in Lisp, then running it on any machine that will run it
produces understanding, and if we translate it into Prolog it still
works.

2. He doesn't need it to say that programs specify causal systems.

He could do that with a broader / weaker notion of interpretation.
However, the class of causal systems would be larger.

So why does he need the smaller class?

>I saw you expressed doubt about the utility of spending time on defining
>what you are talking about. I have to say I utterly disagree. Making up
>definitions is the really productive part. Don't bother which definition
>is the "right" one, or which word should be reserved to which definition.
>Just put forth the definitions, and check the differences, and the
>conclusions you can draw from them. That way you will learn something.
>Words will probably catch up later, if the definitions prove useful. The
>old words were probably too fuzzy to lead anywhere anyway.

I expressed doubt about the utility of spending time on the net
debating definitions, and I will repeat it as often as you'd like.
In almost every case I can recall, it's been a complete waste of
time, and usually functions as a way to shift the burden of proof
(ie, by demanding that the other side define their terms), or as
as an attempt to "take over" certain words so that no one can
easily use them in any other sense.  (The latter is a favorite
of Objectivists.)

This is not to say it isn't useful to offer definitions in order
to make it clearer what you're saying.  The problems arise when
someone demands a definition or insists on one.

-- jd


