Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!dcs.gla.ac.uk!unix.brighton.ac.uk!mjs14
From: mjs14@unix.brighton.ac.uk (shute)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and consciousness
Message-ID: <1994Nov30.162156.10077@unix.brighton.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Brighton, UK
References: <Czu6C4.30z@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <D000q2.8pn@spss.com> <D01MoH.Ir9@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 16:21:56 GMT
Lines: 26

>In article <D000q2.8pn@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>>(All this is assuming that people really had no way of distinguishing 
>>fool's gold from the element gold, which I suspect is false.

In article <D01MoH.Ir9@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>My suggestion (above) is that they may not have had one to hand
>but may nonetheless have been capable of developing one.

[And other contributors]

Sorry folks, I can't stand the gynastics anymore :-)
How were these people going to extract the (fool's) gold from the parent
rock?  Weren't they going to stick it in a furness?  Would they not have
spotted the difference at that point?

Phew!  That's better :-)

None of this changes the substance of the present thread, of course.
I whole heartedly agree with the comments that are being expressed about
the change of meaning of words, in the light of new knowledge.  But I
was finding it tiring simultaneously trying to hold the belief that
the ancients could not test for fool's gold, whilst also believing that
they could.
-- 

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all
