Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: Lupton@luptonpj.demon.co.uk (Peter Lupton)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!demon!luptonpj.demon.co.uk!Lupton
Subject: Re: Strong AI and consciousness
References: <3bgagb$4b4@mp.cs.niu.edu> <499572533wnr@luptonpj.demon.co.uk> <625187462wnr@luptonpj.demon.co.uk>
Distribution: world
Organization: No Organisation
Reply-To: Lupton@luptonpj.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.6
Lines:  19
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 22:47:29 +0000
Message-ID: <109681482wnr@luptonpj.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article: <3bgagb$4b4@mp.cs.niu.edu>  rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
> 
> 
> In the light of current technology, the distinction you are making
> between "computer sense" and "machine sense" is unsupportable, and
> either sense is far too narrow to account for what we consider to be
> a program.  But why should we be surprised.  Nobody expects a
> dictionary 'definition' to actually define anything.  It is well
> known that dictionary 'definitions' tend to be circular and
> incomplete.  They are at best a starting hint as to the meaning of
> the word.

Certainly dictionary definitions are starting points. So why didn't
you treat them as such? The point is that there are two starting points
and Andrzej has equivocated between them.

Cheers,
Pete Lupton
