From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!cosc.canterbury.ac.nz!chisnall Tue Jan 28 12:17:49 EST 1992
Article 3151 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!cosc.canterbury.ac.nz!chisnall
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <1992Jan26.143717.3591@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>
>From: chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (The Technicolour Throw-up)
Date: 26 Jan 92 14:37:16 +1300
Reply-To: chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
References: <11906@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Computer Science,University of Canterbury,New Zealand
Nntp-Posting-Host: cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
Lines: 11

>From article <11906@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, by gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman):
> I don't have any problem believing that machine intelligence is
> possible, I just don't think you can say that some behavior is a sign
> of intelligence when you can completely explain the behavior without
> refering to intelligence.  That sort of belief is completely
> unmotivated.  (Or motivated by sloppy thinking.)

I take it therefore that you believe in dualism?
--
Just my two rubber ningis worth.
Name: Michael Chisnall          email: chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz


