From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Tue Jan 21 09:26:41 EST 1992
Article 2834 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Subject: Re: Searle Agrees with Strong AI?
Message-ID: <1992Jan17.173653.5720@oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 17:36:53 GMT

Marvin Minsky writes:

> Well, you can detect my prejudice.  How about this: let's let Searle
> off the hook for a moment, be asking this question:

>	If we could build a machine that is suitably reactive, and can
>	assemble raw materials so as to make working copies of itself
>	would the resulting machine be ALIVE?

> In  other words, is "understanding" analogous to "living" in the old
> vitalist controversies?

I agree that these are entirely comparable. I don't believe that the
old vitalist controversies have ever been resolved, either.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY



