From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Thu Jan 16 17:19:18 EST 1992
Article 2602 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Subject: Re: Cargo Cult Science
Message-ID: <1992Jan9.182848.999@oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 18:28:48 GMT

> This is balanced by the tendency of pro-computationalists to not rest
> content with showing that Searle and Co have failed to prove their
> conslusions.  They usually try to push their luck by coming up with
> demonstrations that the opposite of the anti-AI conclusion is true, eg
> that anything with the right behavior does understand.

Who are "they"? There are certainly people who believe quite strongly
in the Strong AI position, but I don't know of an attempt to prove
that strong AI *must* be true. The only people who claim to have
proofs (that I know of) are Searle, Penrose, Putnam and (long ago)
Lucas. I don't know of any alleged pro-AI proof.

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with people trying to prove their
conclusions; if a valid proof exists, why not use it?


Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
301A Harris B. Dates Dr.
Ithaca, NY 14850-1313


