From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Tue Mar 24 09:55:59 EST 1992
Article 4479 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!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Mar14.125006.8129@oracorp.com>
Message-ID: <1992Mar16.223127.27661@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 22:31:27 GMT

In article <1992Mar14.125006.8129@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>
>>>Right off the bat, Searle gets it wrong: no AI proponent believes that
>>>a computer (however programmed) is a mind.
>
>>This is contrary to everything that *I* have heard or read, and is
>>certainly opposed to the general tenor of discussion in this group.
>>Any AI types care to comment?
>
>I can't believe that it is contrary to *everything* you have read. The
>whole point of the Systems Reply, that there can be more than one mind
>with a single brain, just like there can be more than one program
>running on a single computer. If people try to make such an
>identification at all, they will say that brain corresponds to
>computer, and mind corresponds to process, or running program.
>
>To say that the mind is a brain is like saying that a sound wave is
>air. Sound is a *pattern* that requires a medium such as air, but
>sound is *not* air. I will admit that people say things like "The mind
>is the brain", (Dennett says this in _Consciousness Explained_) but I
>believe that they are being a little sloppy when they say it. The main
>point of such statements is to stress materialism: a material brain
>(or computer) is *sufficient* to produce a mind; there is no need for
>special "mindstuff".

Sorry, I *do* (and did) understand the distinction that you're
making.  I guess I was being sloppy, as well (that puts me in the company
of not only Dennett, but Turing as well, at least in "Computing Machinery 
and Intelligence"), although from what I vaguely recall of the original
context, I was trying to make a different point (the original poster 
may have been claiming that no one believes in Strong AI, although I
can't recall).

- michael





