Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: Nigel@develco.demon.co.uk (Nigel Phillips)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!hookup!swrinde!pipex!demon!develco.demon.co.uk!Nigel
Subject: Re: I lie therefore I am?
References: <36e5oe$6nc@toves.cs.city.ac.uk> <36vdau$elt@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> <370gq3$c02@toves.cs.city.ac.uk> <3757hs$g39@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> <37j9vc$n1m@toves.cs.city.ac.uk> <37ocdg$580@hobbes.cc.uga.edu>
Organization: Develco
Reply-To: Nigel@develco.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 19
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 12:44:00 +0000
Message-ID: <783521040snz@develco.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

I am not at all convinced that a computer system that was capable of anything 
like thought would produce propositions whose truth or falsehood could be
determined by examining its internal state.

What would we make of the statement "I accessed the private communications of
the Dean yesterday. He's thinking of cutting the department's budget and
selling me to the Pentagon."

The internal state might tell us that the system had performed various accesses
and the poposition would exist, how else could it have been made. But how would
we determine it it were true. Ask the Dean?

It might be true or it might be "a water-tight, ire-proof, angle-iron,
sunk-hinge, time-lock, steel-faced lie!"

-- 
Nigel Phillips

Take what I have to say with a pinch of salt.
