From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Tue Apr  7 23:22:25 EDT 1992
Article 4734 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: What comes after the Systems Reply?
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.073930.8624@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 26 Mar 92 07:39:30 GMT
References: <6428@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Mar18.221543.6924@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <6518@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 59

In article <6518@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <1992Mar18.221543.6924@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>In article <6428@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>on TT not because it 'is just a way to avoid facing the question of what 
>>mechanisms are required (because -- they say -- anything that generates
>>the right behavior will do)', but because it is the way in which we judge
>>understanding in other people and because there is nothing else available.
>
>I discussed this at length with Daryl McCullough.  I don't think it's
>true that that's the way we judge other people; but even if it were,
>we can have reasons that don't apply to machines for thinking the TT
>works for people (see my exchange with Daryl), and we can have reasons
>for thinking that computers following programs produce the behavior
>in ways that do not involve understanding (see articles from Gudeman
>and others).

A thoroughly unconvincing argument on your part at that.
Sorry, I like to call a spade a spade! Your argument about
the TT is lacking in logic, in philosophical discussion a
logical argument is the only kind that is acceptable.
>
>>You yourself also avoid the question what other 
>>mechanisms are required 
>
>I think you may be mistaking the nature of the argument.  The
>argument is not: mechanims M is required, and computers lack M.
>The only argument for the existence of a machanism computers lack
>is: computers can't undertand; humans can; therefore humans must
>have something comuters lack.
>
The argument is precisely of the same form!
"Understanding is required! Computers lack understanding!"
re-read your sentences above.

So, once again. What is it that computers lack that allows 
you to say with great confidence that computers do *not* have
understanding???????
Another related question. Does a dog have understanding?
Be carefull how you answer that one, you will be defining
the word 'understand'.
	Is the dog's understanding same/different from a
humans? If different is it the same type of difference
that exists between a human and a computer?
>Note that nothing in this argument requires that we know what it
>is that computers lack.  But perhaps we might find out, once we
>know more about (a) how humans work and (b) how programs that
>pass the Turing Test (if there are such programs) work.
>
>Indeed, my view is that it is still an open question whether or not
>computers can understand (just by having the right program).
>
>-- jd


-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


