From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!udel!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!fb0m+ Thu Jan 16 17:19:21 EST 1992
Article 2608 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!udel!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!fb0m+
>From: fb0m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Franklin Boyle)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, again
Message-ID: <8dP=FMq00Uh_03B0xK@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 9 Jan 92 20:45:12 GMT
Organization: Cntr for Design of Educational Computing, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 28

Daryl McCullough writes (in response to Jeff Dalton):

> I think it shows that Searle's argument is ridiculous. The difference
> between *real* digestion and simulated digestion has obvious,
> practical consequences: real digestion produces real energy from real
> food, and simulated digestion does not. In other words, a simulation
> of digestion does not pass the "Digestion Turing Test". However, the
> output of "simulated thought" is the same as the output of real
> thought.

Just as real digestion produces heat energy, so does a simulation of
digestion on a computer produce heat energy.  Just as real digestion
coupled to the rest of the human body produces mechanical energy, so
a simulation of digestion on a computer coupled to decoders, signal
amplifiers and mechanical appendages produces mechanical energy.  So
it does pass the "Digestion Turing Test" insofar as that test is based on 
the production of energy (your criterion). However, the internal processes 
are quite different.  

So, too, may be the relations between thought and "simulated thought".
But in this case, we don't yet have a simulation that, we would be
satisfied to claim, passes the Turing test.  Given this state of 
affairs, it may be that what at first glance looks like it will eventually 
pass the Turing test (that is, symbol manipulation) will, in fact, not, 
because of the kinds of things Searle alludes to through the CR and which 
he hypothesizes requires certain causal properties.

-Frank


