From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanit Mon May 25 14:05:35 EDT 1992
Article 5673 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: 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!news.cs.indiana.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanit
oba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Subject: Re: Comments on Searle - What could causal powers be?
Message-ID: <1992May15.051606.9861@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
References: <1992May11.163332.27781@psych.toronto.edu> <1992May13.001033.14320@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992May13.182043.40913@spss.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 05:16:06 GMT
Lines: 57

In article <1992May13.182043.40913@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>I'm curious as to what problem you think dualism leads to.
>
Why, the problem of "Why in hell do you need it?".
Never mind the problem of the mind - body connection
(where is it/how is it done), but there is also the
problem of - if we need something else to explain
the workings of the brain (awareness), then does that
'something else' also require a similar explanation.
In other words, by assuming a duelistic explaination
of mind, you have not explained anything, you have just
pushed back the explanation. Similarly, if God created
the universe, then who created God? If your body requires
a puppeteer to pull the strings (in the form of a seperate
mind) then who pulls the puppeteer's strings?

>>I suppose also that functionalism demands that a kidney be
>>implimentable in a school of fish (actually I'm sure of it!),
>>but what this actually means I have no idea. Does it mean that
>>the SOF kidney will actually process blood the same way as a
>>real kidney, or will it process "information" the same way.
>>	In one case we are not interested in it because I can
>>not have a School of fish transplanted into me as a kidney
>>replacement. I think that you do not have to look very hard
>>to see the same kind of dichotomy between the school of
>>fish intelligence, and the real intelligence.
>
>Boy, you just can't tell the players without a scorecard.  Do you realize
>you're supporting Searle, here?  You're saying that the difference between
>a physical kidney and a simulation of a kidney is the same as that between
>"real intelligence" and intelligence simulated on a computer (in this case,
>a school of fish).  That's Searle exactly; see Sci. Am. 1/90, p. 29.
>
Not exactly Searle's position, I do not know where
Searle gets the idea that AI is a simulated
intelligence? It is a *real* intelligence. My point
is that if you simulate the calculation of 2+2 does
anything get calculated? Sure it does!
	My point about the kidney was that at one
point we are not interested in a potential intelligence
such as a school of fish on the grounds that we cannot
converse intelligently! Thus, the school of fish
intelligence cannot know about the same kinds of
things that we humans are concerned with - such
as colors, shapes, sounds, touch, etc... The school
of fish as a unit is completely oblivious to all of
this! (unless you enable it somehow, but then
the enabaling technology is a part of the equation!)
>However, if an implementation of an algorithm is all that's necessary for
>intelligence, *any* implementation will do, and has "real" intelligence.


-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


