From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!uflorida!cybernet!tomh Tue May 12 15:48:41 EDT 1992
Article 5370 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!uflorida!cybernet!tomh
>From: tomh.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Physical Symbol Systems Hypothesis
Message-ID: <kNR5JB4w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
Date: 2 May 92 04:58:07 GMT
References: <1992May2.031108.7475@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Sender: bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (BBS)
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton
Lines: 14

rex@cs.washington.edu (Rex Jakobovits) writes:

> What are your opinions about this?  Do non-symbolic systems such as
> connectionist nets and Brooksian creatures exhibit intelligence,
> thereby invalidating the PSSH?  Is there evidence that the human
> subconscious does not resort to symbolic processing?  Does this imply
> that the power of symbolic level processing is inherently limited?
> 
Connectionist nets *are* symbolic systems, if you take 'symbol' to
mean 'bit'.  What do Newell and Simon define a "physical symbol"
to be?  A (position, momentum) pair?  A wave function?
How about a protein?

tomh@bambi.ccs.fau.edu


