From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Tue May 12 15:49:07 EDT 1992
Article 5419 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Systems Reply I (repost perhaps)
Message-ID: <1992May5.191454.25793@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Keywords: AI Searle Dickhead Barf
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Mar29.083336.6608@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <6589@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Apr11.053605.28116@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <6637@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 19:14:54 GMT

In article <6637@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.053605.28116@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>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.
>
Could you give an example of such a situation, clearly indicating evidence that
computers do this without thought? Argument "everyone knows that computers
do not have thougths' is not acceptable.

>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?
>
How do determine then what thoughts are taking place? What else do have 
besides behaviour? Telepathy?

>>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".
>
I also seem to have missed this explanation. Could you perhaps be so kind as to
repeat it?

>-- jd


-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


