From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Mon Mar  9 18:35:17 EST 1992
Article 4270 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Mar3.220206.6241@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <1992Mar4.172020.19505@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Mar4.190304.16485@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Mar5.050502.23859@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 05:05:02 GMT

In article <1992Mar4.190304.16485@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>In article <1992Mar4.172020.19505@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar3.220206.6241@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>
>Chris, as you yourself not below, hardly anyone in the AI field is
>into what Searle called "strong AI" anymore. It is simply incredibly
>deceitful to imply that the entire AI community believes the tenets of
>strong AI, when for a start, most of the connectionist community is
>clearly closer to Searle's weak AI.
>
First, I think you're wrong. Many people who claim not to be strong AI
actually are. If you're really a functionalist, then you're really "strong".
Moreover, all the most influential advocates of AI are
"strong" (Minsky, Newell, Simon, McCarthy). Whether one is connectionist
or not has little to do with matter. Finally, MOST people don't care to
think long enough about philosophical matters to really have a position
on them. It might be interesting to argue whether, say, Smolensky is
strong AI or not. He's the only connectionist (apart from Sejnowski,
who clearly is "strong") who's dwelled on the subject at any length.
Second, the Chinese room only applies to strong AI. Searle's VERY
clear about that.

>You're attacking a strawman, or at least, a minority view.
                    ^^^^^^^^

What's this. Your word-of-the-week? One person's strawman is another
person's theoretical hard-core. Take a position and stand there. If
you're not "strong", then Searle's argument poses no threat. In fact,
Searle's position is wholly consistent with "weak" AI.
>


-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


