From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Mon May 25 14:05:40 EDT 1992
Article 5682 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: kidneys and fish
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992May13.001033.14320@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992May13.182043.40913@spss.com> <60689@aurs01.UUCP>
Message-ID: <1992May15.144954.9967@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 14:49:54 GMT

In article <60689@aurs01.UUCP> throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)

>> However, if an implementation of an algorithm is all that's necessary for
>> intelligence, *any* implementation will do, and has "real" intelligence.
>
>I agree, but have reservations about what might be meant by an
>"implementation of an algorithm".  Putnam's-Rock-like notions of
>implementation of an algorithm, for example, don't seem to really
>capture the notion.

OK, but then the question is what *does* count as an implementation.  This
seems to be a much more contentious question that it first appears...

- michael



