From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Tue May 12 15:50:02 EDT 1992
Article 5517 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,talk.phlisophy.misc
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Question: Minds and Machines
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <OZ.92May6132613@ursa.sis.yorku.ca> <1992May7.153948.8766@psych.toronto.edu> <1992May7.175530.18595@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Message-ID: <1992May9.171814.17440@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 17:18:14 GMT

In article <1992May7.175530.18595@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
> The term "information processing" is ambiguous.  It is sometimes used as
>a synonym for "computing" as on a digital computer.  But it also carries
>is own meaning as taking some information and processing it, not necessarily
>in any specified way.
>
> It's my impression that Bill was using the term in the second sense, while
>Michael and Chris are reading into it the first sense.
>
I agree, and my implicit point was that a lot of functionalist arguments
rely on an equivocation (i.e., exploiting an ambiguity for the purposes
of argument) on that term.
>


-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


