From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Tue May 12 15:50:13 EDT 1992
Article 5536 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Systems Reply I (repost perhaps)
Keywords: AI Searle Dickhead Barf
Message-ID: <1992May10.165225.25257@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 10 May 92 16:52:25 GMT
References: <6637@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992May5.191454.25793@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <6686@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 65

In article <6686@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <1992May5.191454.25793@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>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.
>
Simply stating so does not make it so! WHAT would you
say that it requires to evaluate f(x)? If not thought
then give it another name. (Same difference)
I think that if you watch a brain as it evaluates the
same function, you will see it doing something, but
in no case will you see anything resembling thought!
>
>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 :
Let me fill in this part for you.
	If we look inside a computer you will not see
anything resembling understanding, therefore computers
don't understand! (we will conveniently ignore the
same argument also applies to the brain!)
>
>     ...
>     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.
>
Along the same vein;
	1. Physical matter+organization don't cause minds.
	2. Brains do.
	3. Therefore brains must include something that
		is not physical or organizational.

You will note that this is the exact same argument, but
now it looks real silly, why? I will tell you why,
the first premise is just nonsense!
>Note that if you reject this 2nd argument, the main argument
>(which does not involve "causal powers") is untouched.
>
I do not agree with any of these arguments!
>If you don't agree with this, read Searle and see for yourself.
>
>-- jd


I have read Searle, trying to understand something that
I may have missed. There is nothing in his argument that
I missed. Therefore Searle is not a good philosopher!
-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


