Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Penrose's new book
Message-ID: <CyrrH1.88o@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <HULTHAGE.94Oct20154116@torsk.usc.edu> <Cy10zL.L5L@unocal.com> <hubey.782811565@pegasus.montclair.edu>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 00:46:12 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <hubey.782811565@pegasus.montclair.edu> hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey) writes:
>stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>
>>To make an interesting artificial intelligence, mimicking the brain
>>may be no more necessary than a flying machine flapping wings.
>
>Nice point. Some of the arguments against AI seem to be just as you
>say. I can imagine something along the lines of; "Airplanes don't
>really fly. They just look like they do. Do they flap their wings?
>NO! So it's not really flying!"

Which circle of Hell is this, in which we have to encounter the
same tired arguments again and again and again?

>It doesn't matter what computers can do. If someone wants to deny
>that they can be intelligent, they can always up the ante by
>coming up with more and more reasons as to why what the computer
>does is not "real intelligence". What more (actually less) can
>be expected from people who deny that the Turing test has any
>validity.

That well-known item of God-given truth.


