From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Thu Feb 20 15:22:00 EST 1992
Article 3854 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Virtual Person?
Message-ID: <6208@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 18 Feb 92 23:25:37 GMT
References: <1992Jan30.001623.12556@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <6188@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Feb14.180030.48911@spss.com>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 33

In article <1992Feb14.180030.48911@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>In article <6188@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>I do not agree with this sort of move.  Searle presents several
>>arguments.  The "classic" Chinese Room is _not_ a brain simulation.
>>Maybe you and Searle think it could just as well be a brain
>>simulation, but maybe you and Searle are wrong.  To use an argument
>>the applies to brain simulation against the classic Chinese Room,
>>you have to show that it applies, not just argue that Searle would
>>accept it.
>
>To use one of your own favorite arguments, if Searle is right that
>intelligence does not come simply by running an algorithm, what does
>it change if that algorithm is a brain simulation?

Nothing.

>What about Searle's argument is invalidated because it's running that
>kind of a program?

I don't know.  But some people seem to think brain simulation is
a key move in an argument against Searle.  Evidently, they're
relying on some property that brain simulations have that other
program's don't.  So why would their conclusions against Searle
apply more generally?

All I'm asking is that they answer that question.  Perhaps all they
can conclude is that programs can understand only if they're brain
simulations. Don't you want to know how general the conclusion is?

(Actually, the more questionable move is from artificial neurons
to brain simulation programs.)

-- jd


