From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!twinkies.berkeley.edu!epfaith Sun May 31 19:04:23 EDT 1992
Article 5933 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!twinkies.berkeley.edu!epfaith
>From: epfaith@twinkies.berkeley.edu (Edward Paul Faith)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Grounding: Virtual vs. Real
Message-ID: <vvf5pINN7e@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 27 May 92 07:53:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.vvf5pINN7e
References: <1992May25.214006.29965@Princeton.EDU> <4799@sheol.UUCP> <1992May27.043004.28647@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: twinkies.berkeley.edu

In article <1992May27.043004.28647@Princeton.EDU>,
harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:

>[. . .]
>a computational simulation of the robot that could pass the TTT [. . .]
>could predict all the implemented robot's
>(or real solar system's) movements, words and thoughts [. . .]
>(just as it could predict all planetary interactions, motions
>and positions), but it would not really be moving or thinking.

But surely you accept the possibility that this universe
could be a program running on a computer in some other universe,
created by scientists for the purposes of simulating that universe.
It's probably not true, but it's possible.  A person in that other
universe can then argue just as you have that we are not truly
thinking.  Would he be right?  Your arguments all point to the
answer that yes, he would indeed be right, and we would not truly
be thinking.

So your arguments lead to the conclusion that we may not be
thinking.  But you hopefully also believe that we definitely are
thinking.  I'm sure you have a solution to this inconsistency of 
yours, but I'll be darned if I can guess what it is.


