From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!tdat!swf Mon Oct 19 16:59:13 EDT 1992
Article 7280 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!tdat!swf
>From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Message-ID: <1258@tdat.teradata.COM>
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:19:46 GMT
References: <1992Oct2.202342.16039@spss.com> <1992Oct5.022907.6131@meteor.wisc.edu> <BvpMGo.KLy@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Oct6.204155.13168@meteor.wisc.edu> <1222@tdat.teradata.COM> <11609@risky.Convergent.COM>
Sender: news@tdat.teradata.COM
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit
Lines: 23

In article <11609@risky.Convergent.COM> paul@colosus.convergent.com writes:
|The only way in which it can be shown that the execution of an algorithm
|of some particular sort cannot _fly_like_a_bird_ is to show that some
|critical portion of the process used by _birds_in_flight_ is not representable
|as some algorithm.
|
|I expect to have my PC flying around my living room any day now, as soon as I
|come up with the right algorithm. ;^)
|
This has been gone over before.  That argument is only equivalent to mine
*if* thought is primarily a physical, rather than a cybernetic, process.

Since this is cerainly not obvious - it requires demonstration.

At the current state of technology it is more *useful* to continue to do
research on the tentative assumption that thining is primarily cybernetic.
If, in the future, evidence to the contrary shows up, we will have lost
little.  If the assumtion is true, then we will have made major progress
towards AI.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com


