From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Jun  9 10:07:26 EDT 1992
Article 6118 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Hypothesis: I am a Transducer (Formerly "Virtual Grounding")
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.205348.19030@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1992Jun5.045522.19139@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Jun5.130022.26367@cs.ucf.edu> <1992Jun5.190920.26879@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 20:53:48 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <1992Jun5.190920.26879@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:
>
>But even simulation of QM does not reinforce this argument either.
>There is absolutely no relevance between these two fields.
>Harnad has to prove that his statement is true, but the people of the
>opposite field do not need to prove anything.

  This discussion sure has wandered far.

  To be fair to Harnad, I think I should point out that he said nothing about
QM in his postings.  I suspect he would agree that QM is probably not
relevant.

  Harnad's assertions about grounding don't depend on QM.  They are based
on his experience as a psychologist.  He sees interactions between the body
and the world which to him seem critical to human intelligence, and he is
convinced the equivalent cannot be achieved digitally.  At least some of
those who disagree with Harnad's assertions (and I include myself here) do
so because we believe he underestimates the capabilities of a computer.
Perhaps if we knew more psych and Harnad knew more CS, we would discover
that our disagreements are quite minor.



