Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!uhog.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!mind.mit.edu!user
From: push@mit.edu (Pushpinder Singh)
Subject: Re: Minsky's new article (was: Roger Penro
Message-ID: <push-1611941848460001@mind.mit.edu>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT
References: <39d8g2$dlm@coli-gate.coli.uni-sb.de> <39eaqk$nn9@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <CzDqLI.686@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 23:48:46 GMT
Lines: 24
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:22118 comp.ai:25251

In article <CzDqLI.686@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) wrote:

> So far as I can tell, the Penrose arguments say nothing against
> *artificial* intelligence, only digital computer intelligence.
> Even Searle allows that humans are machanisms.  He just thinks
> it matter what the mechanism is, not just the externally observable
> behavior.

That's simply the anti-behaviorist stance.  I think Searle's actual
position is something rather silly and far more extreme...

> Why such positions excit so much hostility is a mystery to me.
> So what if you have to do some quantum machanical stuff rather
> than just run programs?  Why is that such a flame-generating
> issue?

Well that's just it.  The flaming is generated because there is
no good reason to believe that intelligence requires "quantum
mechanical stuff", regardless of whether it plays any role in
human intelligence.  Somehow I doubt doing "quantum mechanical
stuff" (whatever that means!) is as easy as you're making it out
to be, which is yet another reason to hope that it isn't required.

-push
