From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Mon Mar  9 18:33:51 EST 1992
Article 4137 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.192456.8353@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1992Feb26.172245.10210@psych.toronto.edu> <456@tdatirv.UUCP> <1992Feb28.170150.14142@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:24:56 GMT
Lines: 46

In article <1992Feb28.170150.14142@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>In article <456@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>>
>>Semantics *is* distinct from syntax, but it is *not* obvious that it cannot
>>be *implemented* from a syntactic basis.  
>
>"Chris, do an encore of the burden-of-proof argument!"
>
>Sure thing Mr. Daemon!
>
>What is not obvious is that it can. And since yourself admit that they
>are patently different, the burden of proof is upon those who believe
>that such an implementation is possible. 

  You've got it backwards again.

	Judge:  Mr Green, you are charged with speeding.  What do you say?

	You: I didn't do it.  Where is the proof that I did?

	Judge:  A policeman has made the charge.  It is obvious that
		police don't make these things up.  The burden of
		proof is on you to show you were not speeding.

 Now getting back to the case in hand:

 You can say:	Strong AI is obvious bunk.  The burden of proof to show
		otherwise is on the AI proponents.  Most AI proponents
		would agree with your assigment of the burden of proof.

 But, instead, the AI proponents are saying:  We have proof positive that
		strong AI is impossible.  This is now a different question,
		and the burden of proof falls on those making the claim
		to have the proof.

 To rephrase:	If the AI-proponents were saying "Semantics arise from syntax
and therefore strong AI is possible" the burden of proof would fall on them.
But instead it is the anti-AI people who are using the semantics/syntax
claim.  The burden of proof falls on them to justify it.  You cannot just
wave your hands and say it is obvious.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940


