From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!oz Wed Oct 14 14:58:29 EDT 1992
Article 7197 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai:4721 comp.ai.neural-nets:4654 comp.ai.philosophy:7197 sci.psychology:4793
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!oz
>From: oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
In-Reply-To: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca's message of 10 Oct 92 17: 38:50 GMT
Message-ID: <OZ.92Oct10164359@ursa.sis.yorku.ca>
Sender: news@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca (USENET News System)
Organization: York U. Student Information Systems Project
References: <1992Sep23.162606.13811@udel.edu> <BvM75v.AEF@eis.calstate.edu>
	<burt.718738730@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:43:59 GMT

Burt Voorhees writes [in response to my impression that
searle and penrose are ignored]:

     Really?  I was just resently sent a list of 38 references to papers
   about the Chinese Room, all in major technical journals, with an appended
   comment that this was only a partial listing of all the papers which have
   been written on this.  The fact that every AI proponent who srites about
   machine intelligence seems to feel it necessary to try and refute the
   Searle argument to me indicates .. blah blah...

Those are probably the refs Chalmers have posted in the past. They are
fun to read, and pay special attention to the "systems reply", a reply
Searle appearently doesn't want to understand. It is also worth noting
that fifty-sixty (if that many) articles in a decade does not add upto
"every AI proponent who writes about machine intelligence".

     As for Penrose, I think that most AI people just don't know how to
   reply to him.  Other than attempting to down play his book, of course.

OF course! What else could it possibly be? :-]

oz
---
Information is in the mind of  |  internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca
the beholder. - R. Jackendoff  |  phone:[416] 736 2100 x33976





