From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!hardy.math.okstate.edu!gindrup Mon May 25 14:05:05 EDT 1992
Article 5619 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!hardy.math.okstate.edu!gindrup
>From: gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..)
Subject: Wonderful world of deduction
Message-ID: <1992May13.152446.8806@math.okstate.edu>
Sender: gindrup@hardy.math.okstate.edu
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Math Department
References: <6684@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992May10.162915.23987@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 15:24:46 GMT

In article <1992May10.162915.23987@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>In article <6684@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>[stuff about Understanding]
>>
>>No I don't.  I can _conclude_ that it's not present.  Like this:
>>
>>   1. Computers can't understand.
>>   2. Mechanims M is necessary for understanding.
>>   3. Therefore computers lack M.
>>
>Hey, why not! Circular reasoning always works for me!

Circular or otherwise, it's still not a well-formed argument.  To quote an
old saw, "Don't put the cart before the horse."  That's what's been done
here.  In fact, from (1) and (2), nothing is deducible.  Given only (1) and
(2), one may decide that N is also necessary for understanding and that
computers have N and not M.  Perhaps P is necessary for mechanism M to work,
computers have M, *and* they do not have P.  In short, statements (1),(2),
and (3) are poor logic when written in that order.  When written (3),(2),(1),
they actually inmply what the original poster intended, I think.
Then as one respondent pointed out it would be necessary to prove the 
correctness of statements (2) and (3).  I would bet that this will be diff-
icult as I know I don't *understand* understanding.  At best, I have glimpsed
it through a darkened room through several layers of gauze without my
contacts in...

- Eric Gindrup ! gindrup@hardy.math.okstate.edu


