From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Tue May 12 15:49:45 EDT 1992
Article 5489 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: Systems Reply I (repost perhaps)
Keywords: AI Searle Dickhead Barf
Message-ID: <6686@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 8 May 92 18:31:29 GMT
References: <1992Apr11.053605.28116@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <6637@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992May5.191454.25793@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 68

In article <1992May5.191454.25793@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>In article <6637@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr11.053605.28116@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>>Ok, I do not mean that thoughts are strictly behaviour, BUT
>>>without the thoughts that do go on in my head my behaviour
>>>would be very different! There is no way that you would get
>>>this kind of behaviour out of me without thought. 
>>
>>Not out of _you_ perhaps, but why not out of a computer.
>>There are already a number of things computers can do without
>>thought that involve thought in humans.
>>
>Could you give an example of such a situation, clearly indicating
>evidence that computers do this without thought? Argument "everyone
>knows that computers do not have thougths' is not acceptable.

An example: evaluating f(7) where f(x) = 1 if x=0 and x*f(x-1) otherwise.

If you think this involves thought on the computer's part, give
me a reason why I should agree with you.

>>Moreover, the simple fact is that a human can have all kinds of
>>different thoughts while producing the same behavior.  It is
>>simply not possible to determine what thoughts are taking place
>>by looking only at behavior.  So how can you be sure we can
>>determine _some_ thoughts are taking place?
>>
>How do determine then what thoughts are taking place? What else do have 
>besides behaviour? Telepathy?

Reasoning ability.

>>>Searle has not even shown that humans have the "required
>>>causal powers", he just took a word out of thin air and
>>>he expects us to believe a bare naked statement like that.
>>
>>That is just wrong.  Chalmers, I, and others have explained several
>>times Searle's use of "causal powers".
>>
>I also seem to have missed this explanation. Could you perhaps be 
>so kind as to repeat it?

Briefly, none of Searle's arguments have the form

  1. Understanding requires causal powers P.
  2. Computers don't have P.
  3. Therefore computers don't understand.

They're much more like:

  Main argument :

     ...
     Therefore computers+programs don't cause minds.

  Causal powers:

    1. Computers+programs don't cause minds.
    3. Brains do.
    4. Therefore brains must have some causal powers
       computers+programs do not.

Note that if you reject this 2nd argument, the main argument
(which does not involve "causal powers") is untouched.

If you don't agree with this, read Searle and see for yourself.

-- jd


