From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!zrz.tu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Tue May 12 15:48:33 EDT 1992
Article 5357 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!zrz.tu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Systems Reply I (repost perhaps)
Keywords: AI Searle Dickhead Barf
Message-ID: <6637@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 1 May 92 17:27:59 GMT
References: <1992Mar29.083336.6608@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <6589@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Apr11.053605.28116@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 108

In article <1992Apr11.053605.28116@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>In article <6589@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>>line up a subdirectory with the name of the subdirectory!
>>
>>Look at Putnam's _Reason, Truth, and History_ for his cats
>>and cherries argument.
>
>I don't have it handy, However, what is wrong with my
>saying that computers can do the same kind of lining
>up as people can? (If you cannot explain this to me
>then you really don't understand putnam's argument either!)

The book is widely available and easily found.  Check it out.

Now, how do you know computers can do the same things humans can?
It doesn't follow in general that if a human can do something a
computer can too.

>Ok, I do not mean that thoughts are strictly behaviour, BUT
>without the thoughts that do go on in my head my behaviour
>would be very different! There is no way that you would get
>this kind of behaviour out of me without thought. 

Not out of _you_ perhaps, but why not out of a computer.
There are already a number of things computers can do without
thought that involve thought in humans.

Moreover, the simple fact is that a human can have all kinds of
different thoughts while producing the same behavior.  It is
simply not possible to determine what thoughts are taking place
by looking only at behavior.  So how can you be sure we can
determine _some_ thoughts are taking place?

(Suppose a computer had been turned off and when booted claimed
to have been thinking all the while.  Would you believe it?
Are you convinced that it's behavior would have to show it
had been turned off?)

>>>>Quite simply, the arguments are _not_: machines are not people,
>>>>therefore they do not understand.
>>>>
>>>I beg to differ, as evidenced by all those arguments about
>>>intentionality, and agency on the net recently, which very
>>>conveniently disqulifies certain things from having these
>>>properties by mere hand waving!
>>
>>Quote the arguments you have in mind, because I haven't
>>any that fit your description.  
>
>Mr. Zeleny's arguments about agency come to mind, or
>have you missed those? There where a number of them,
>such as why a virus is an agent, while a cloud is not.

Either you didn't understand me, or you didn't understand Zeleny.
Zeleny was talking about agency and using "person" in a sense related
to that.  By "person" in "the arguments are _not_: machines are not
people, therefore they do not understand", I meant "people" in the
sense of human beings.  Otherwise, I would have said "persons".

>[airships & requirements for flight - deleted]
>>That is just false.  Eg, Searle has an argument that computers
>>lack required causal powers (compare to "an argument that it's
>>wrongly shaped").  
>
>Searle has not even shown that humans have the "required
>causal powers", he just took a word out of thin air and
>he expects us to believe a bare naked statement like that.

That is just wrong.  Chalmers, I, and others have explained several
times Searle's use of "causal powers".

>>>Nothing that Searle says proves that people are anything
>>>other than machines! Granted, machines with extraordinary
>>>capabilities, but still machines!
>>
>>This shows that I was right to recommend the Reith Lectures, though
>>it's actually the 2nd one in which he discusses meat machines.
>>
>>You seem to think Searle is trying to show people are not machines
>>That is wrong.  Searle is not trying to prove people are not machines.
>>He says they _are_ machines.  He also says machines can have minds.
>>
>Look, you are trying to say that computers are machines
>therefore they cannot have minds. You say, Searle also
>believe that people are machines, but they have minds.
>As someone said, "It's a fine point, that makes no
>distinction!"

What?  I have never said that computers are machines therefore
they cannot have minds.  Look, *please* read the stuff of Searle's
that I suggested.  I don't think we have any hope of understanding
each other otherwise.

>	And unless you can come up with distinction
>between the two I also feel there is no point in
>arguing, since you seem to have your mind pretty well
>made up. You have certainly convinced yourself that
>there is some fundamental difference between
>human machines and computer machines.

So far as I can tell, you simply haven't understood what I've written.
If you want to say that's my fault for being insufficiently clear,
fine.  But it takes too long for me to type enough text to explain
everything and you are completely unwilling to read anythign that I
suggest would help make things clear.  So I don't think there's
any point in continuing this exchange.

-- jd


