Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.archaeology
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsfeed.cit.cornell.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!simtel!news3.noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Searle in NYRB
Message-ID: <jqbDHMEEo.7ML@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <46p5i7$3gp@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <47evn6$l1b$1@mhafc.production.compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 11:54:24 GMT
Lines: 42
Sender: jqb@netcom22.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:34535 comp.ai.philosophy:34395 sci.archaeology:33148

In article <47evn6$l1b$1@mhafc.production.compuserve.com>,
David E. Weldon, Ph.D.  <102521.566@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Hello, I'm back in a somewhat altered form.
>
>I think its time to tell a little story (perhaps 
>apocrophal--sp?)...
>
>Some time ago, roughly 400 years or less, think, people determined 
>the factors of a non-prime number by tediously subtracting a 
>proposed factor from the number over and over again until the 
>number reduced to zero.  By counting the number of times the 
>subtracted, they were able to determine what we now call a 
>"quotient."  THEN, some brilliant mind came up with the algorithm 
>which we now call "long division."  The people who demonstrated 
>this algorithm and others who learned how to use it were perceived 
>as incredible geniuses (I think Isaac Asimov had a short story 
>based on this--set in the future, of course--where every one used 
>a calculator and knew virtually nothing of the numeric algorithms 
>of arithmetic...Then some brillient scientist re-discovers the 
>human algorithms of addition and multiplication and every one is 
>amazed that he can duplicate the results of a calculator).

Actually, he was a plumber.  The Senate was amazed, but then they are
easily swayed.  As I recall, the story was called "The Feeling of Power",
published in 1952 or so.  The most remarkable thing to my mind was Asimov's
accurate image of hand-held calculators.

>My point is, the ability to execute an algorithm is not a proof of 
>intelligence or awareness.  Nonetheless, significant groups of 
>people will be beguiled enough by the execution to assume the 
>execution implies an intrinsic knowledge and awareness.

What are intrinsic knowledge and awareness?  When are we correct to attribute
them?
 
>Frankly, 
>I think Chris Malcolm speaks directly to the crux of the matter.


-- 
<J Q B>

