From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!mips!decwrl!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Mon May 25 14:05:18 EDT 1992
Article 5641 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!mips!decwrl!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Subject: Re: Systems Reply I (repost perhaps)
Message-ID: <1992May14.040721.25917@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Keywords: AI Searle Dickhead Barf
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
References: <6686@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992May10.165225.25257@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <6701@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 04:07:21 GMT
Lines: 135

In article <6701@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <1992May10.165225.25257@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>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!
>
>Of course not!  Who ever thought otherwise?
>
My point is - what makes you think that a computer does this
without thought? What do you mean when you speak of 'thought'
I simply mean that a process occurs where you bring in 
learned or otherwise primitives (memories/abilities) to bear
on a problem. I think that this is a minimalist defenition of
thought.
	The computer does all of these things, so if we accept
this definition, and have no reason to exclude computers, then
the computer has thought as it's solving the problem.

>>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!
>
>So?  
>
Are you joking, you do not see the connection? The difference
that you see between the computer - running a program and
a live person in thought is just not there! As your argument
that - intuitively, you cannot think where the thought occurs
in the computer, also applies to a person!

>Again, you really ought to read the first Reith Lecture.  Searle
>makes the same point!  Now how can that be ...?
>
He reaches a different conclusion based on some logic
that is not apparent to me. His conclusion is basically
- there must be something in humans that gives awareness,
but since I cannot see it I will call it causal powers.
- my conclusion is - since we cannot see any difference
I will assume that the requirements of AI are fullfilled,
therefore I do not need to assume/invoke causal powers.
>>>
>>>  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!)
>
>If you're so sure Searle says that, you should be able to give me a
>reference.  As you pointed out above, simply stating so does not make
>it so!
>
It is not a quote from Searle, but it is what he says.
>>>     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.

(1) is really suspect! This premise is yet to be proven.
(2) I will accept - as a definition.
(3) not only illogical, but also nonsense - what do causal
powers mean?
>>>
>>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!
>
>You are wrong about the nature of arguments, and you have
>misunderstood my point.
>
>The premise (1) is the _conclusion_ of another argument.
>(More or less the same argument that concludes computers
>don't understand just by running the right program.)
>
What is this conclusion based on? How can we be sure
that there really is no understanding in the computer
even though it swears, and acts, as if it does understand?
Clearly, Searle has proven that the understanding will not
be in any part of the system, but he has not even touched
the system as a whole, OH sure he puts the system in the
man. That shows a clear missunderstanding on Searles part
of what a system is! Let us say for instance, that I
take the brain of a chinese speaker, and implant it
in your head, let us further suppose that I am so good
at surgery that I interleave your neurons with the
chinese speakers. Now when I ask you a question in
Chinese, the Chinese speaker answers! Your body protests
that it understands chinese, but when I ask the english
side of you - you claim to not understand.
	I think in this case you would be willing to
grant that there is some understanding somewhere
(in the Chinese speakers mind), but in the exact
same way I will tell you that I did not actually
implant a Chinese speaker's brain, I implanted
a Chinese speaking computer into your head.
Now, where did the understanding that you assumed
go? Did it disappear, because now we are dealing
with a computer instead of a brain? Why?
>
>But note -- and this is the main point -- the "causal powers"
>occur only here: they are not part of showing that (1) is
>true.
>
>In short, Searle is NOT arguing thus:
>
I really would like to know what Searle is arguing,
not what he is not arguing! (I really do believe
that I already know what he is arguing, and I also
believe that I have evidence that he is wrong!)

>>>
>>I do not agree with any of these arguments!
>
>>>If you don't agree with this, read Searle and see for yourself.
>
-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


