From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Tue Jan 28 12:14:55 EST 1992
Article 2951 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Subject: Re: Impossibility of flight vs impossibility of AI
Message-ID: <1992Jan21.144204.29245@oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 14:42:04 GMT

Chris Malcolm writes (in response to Matthew Wiener):

>>This analogy is bogus: it was known in 1890 that heavier-than-air
>>flight was empirically possible.

>1890?? Birds and bees are heavier than air, fly, and people have known
>that for longer than they've been people.

I was trying to make an analogy between artificial intelligence and
artificial flight. Considering birds and bees as evidence for the
possibility of an artificial flying machine is comparable, in my
opinion, to considering humans as evidence of the possibility of an
artificial thinking machine.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY




