From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.smith.edu!milkyway!orourke Mon May 25 14:06:11 EDT 1992
Article 5739 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.smith.edu!milkyway!orourke
>From: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Subject: Re: Grounding: Real vs. Virtual (formerly "on meaning")
Message-ID: <1992May19.131655.28763@sophia.smith.edu>
Keywords: simulation
Sender: root@sophia.smith.edu (Operator)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
References: <1992May19.003821.9450@Princeton.EDU> <1992May19.014453.26865@sophia.smith.edu> <1992May19.035936.7143@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 13:16:55 GMT
Lines: 29

In article <1992May19.035936.7143@Princeton.EDU> 
	harnad@shine.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:

 >... But if you are asking whether a calculator
 >adds or a chess-program plays chess in the same sense I do, i.e., by
 >thinking, the answer is no, they do not, and that has nothing to do
 >with linguistic usage.

Yes, it is clear that computers do not add or play chess "in the same
sense" we do.  But the community of speakers has decided to label
these computer activities "addition" and "chess playing."  I suspect
the same with happen with "thinking":  we will call what computers
will do "thinking."  And yes, they will not think in the same sense
that we do.  But everyone will call it thinking (I predict).  Perhaps 
there will be a need for new words, thinking_human to refer to what we 
do, and thinking_general to describe the activity independent of
the mechanism.
	When you say (in an earlier post), 

		"there is no real thinking in a simulated nervous system",

you mean (I suppose) there is no thinking_human; but there could well be
thinking_general.  If you only mean to say that simulation of thinking
is not thinking in the same sense that simulation of addition is
not addition, then few could disagree.
	Clearly I should read your papers.  Not all those journals
are available in local libraries.  Is your commentary in the
Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence
available on line?


