From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!torn.onet.on.ca!watserv1!watmath!xenitec!uunet.ca!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Sun May 31 19:04:14 EDT 1992
Article 5917 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!torn.onet.on.ca!watserv1!watmath!xenitec!uunet.ca!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <6747@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 26 May 92 19:44:10 GMT
References: <6728@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992May20.223911.20396@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992May21.165249.2895@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 58

In article <1992May21.165249.2895@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>In article <1992May20.223911.20396@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>In article <6728@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>>In article <1992May18.120933.1683@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>>
>>>>                   completely closed yourself off to any
>>>>progress in the area of the philosophy of AI. All of the promising
>>>>areas for investigation you have declared are uninteresting. You don't
>>>>want to know how humans understand, you only want to know whether
>>>>humans understand. 
>>>> [etc.]

>>>This is almost completely wrong, and insulting besides.
>>
>>  Funny you should say that.  I thought Daryl had it almost completely
>>right!  If he is so completely wrong, you must be somehow misstating your
>>position in such a way that we reach this type of interpretation.
>>
>Funny but this is exactly my feeling too! 

That's because you ignore a fair part of what I say and misinterpret
the rest.

>>>For instance, I am interested in how humans understand.  I just don't
>>>think we have to know this before we can reach any conclusions about
>>>computers.
>>
>>  One way of finding out how humans understand is to try to create the
>>equivalent ability in a computer.  You don't have to succeed in order
>>to learn.  Indeed the manner in which the attempt fails can be quite
>>revealing.  In my opinion failed attempts at creating AI have already
>>contributed considerably to our understanding of the nature of mind.

Have I ever said people shouldn't try to create the same ability
in a computer?  No.

You are reading all sorts of things into my articles because of
your preconceptions about what people who say things in favor of
Searle must believe.

>>  When you insist on coming to premature conclusions about computers, you
>>effectively shut out this method of investigation.
>>
>Couldn't agree more.

I have said explicitly in several articles, including the first one
I posted when I (re)joined the discussion near the end of last year,
that I regard the question of cumputer understanding as an open
question.  I've even posted articles on why I think Searle has
failed to prove his case.

However, I happen to find that many of the things said against
Searle are bogus.

But perhaps you don't care how good the arguments against Searle
are, just so long as they're against.

-- jd


