From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers Tue Jan 21 09:27:05 EST 1992
Article 2880 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!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Subject: Re: Virtual Person?
Message-ID: <1992Jan18.222329.23953@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
References: <1992Jan16.194359.1160@cs.yale.edu> <1992Jan16.204346.903@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <60287@aurs01.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 92 22:23:29 GMT
Lines: 18

In article <60287@aurs01.UUCP> throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:

>Thus, I think David's "improvement" isn't one really: Drew was
>encompasing "the system wouldn't aquire additional minds" because he's
>already up to The Virtual Person Gambit, while David's improvement
>only applies to The Systems Reply.

The systems reply and the "virtual person gambit" are of a piece, as
far as I'm concerned -- they're internal and external versions of the
same thing.  The "virtual person" is just a "system" that happens to
be located inside a skull.  Either way, Searle says "the human doesn't
understand", the AI advocate says "but the system does", and Searle
says "but that's ridiculous".

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."


