From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Tue Jan 21 09:26:55 EST 1992
Article 2861 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle Agrees with Strong AI?
Message-ID: <383@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jan 92 20:22:47 GMT
References: <1992Jan16.054716.14332@oracorp.com> <1992Jan16.220144.8148@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 16

In article <1992Jan16.220144.8148@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
|I personally think that the case against 1 and 2 is made compellingly
|by the example of the giant lookup table -- a ridiculous example,
|impossible in practice but not in principle, but enough to make the
|case.  I think that it's like that any reasonable-in-practice
|mechanisms that has the right behaviour will have mentality, however.

Hey, I like this.  It summarizes my position better than I have myself.

None of the cheating approaches to passing the Turing Test seem 'real'
to me, in the sense of being actually constructable (as opposed to
theoretically constructable).
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)



