From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Thu Feb 20 15:19:58 EST 1992
Article 3648 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and Panpsychism
Message-ID: <1992Feb11.190549.21430@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Feb6.185713.11504@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb6.222128.18717@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Feb10.213422.4256@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 19:05:49 GMT

In article <1992Feb10.213422.4256@aisb.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <1992Feb6.222128.18717@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb6.185713.11504@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>>
>>>Well, I'm still a bit confused.  Are you an instrumentalist in
>>>*practice*, but not in *theory*?  If so, what reason do you give for
>>>saying that a humungous lookup table, which produces the right
>>>behaviour, *doesn't* have beliefs.  If the answer is something like
>>>"it doesn't have the appropriate functional relations", then do you 
>>>have a working definition of what these functions are that isn't
>>>simply motivated by ruling out lookup tables?          
>
>It is not necessary to have a worked-out definition to know that
>some things do not qualify. 

Perhaps, but it's traditional in (analytic) philosophy to have one if
you're going to do battle with someone...especially over conflicting
intuitions.
-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


