From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!sun-barr!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu Tue Jan 28 12:14:59 EST 1992
Article 2955 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!sun-barr!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu
>From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Impossibility of flight vs impossibility of AI
Message-ID: <63030@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 92 16:32:25 GMT
References: <1992Jan21.144204.29245@oracorp.com>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 16
Nntp-Posting-Host: libra.wistar.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: daryl@oracorp.com

In article <1992Jan21.144204.29245@oracorp.com>, daryl@oracorp writes:
>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.

You were making an analogy with artificial intelligence _via digital
computation_.

Moreover, you were making the analogy in response to someone on the
anti-AI warpath.  The two situations are not very comparable.  Where,
in 1890, could one point to four decades of enthusiastic but uncon-
vincing artificial flight attempts?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)


