From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchinews!spssig!markrose Tue Jan 21 09:27:34 EST 1992
Article 2934 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchinews!spssig!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is understanding algorithmic?
Message-ID: <1992Jan20.195139.34168@spss.com>
Date: 20 Jan 92 19:51:39 GMT
References: <DIRISH.92Jan18155827@jeeves.math.utah.edu>
Organization: SPSS, Inc.
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com

In article <DIRISH.92Jan18155827@jeeves.math.utah.edu> dirish@math.utah.edu 
(Dudley Irish) writes:
>Does the tape refer to anything?  Does the read/write head refer to
>anything?  Does the state machine refer to anything?  I have to answer
>no.  And if the answer is no, then: Where is the understanding?

Why do you have to answer no?  

Look at your own brain.  Look very closely, so all you see are neurons
in a chemical soup, with electrochemical impulses whizzing back and forth.
Do the neurons refer?  Do the chemicals refer?  Does the electricity refer?

Your argument proves nothing about the Turing machine; it is simply 
a demonstration of the bludgeon-like nature of reductionism.

Go home and reflect on the question, "Is a single water molecule wet?"
until the concept that a system may possess a property which its lower-
level components do not becomes clear to you.


