From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!uwvax!meteor!tobis Mon Oct 19 16:59:00 EDT 1992
Article 7260 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!uwvax!meteor!tobis
>From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Simulated Brain
Message-ID: <1992Oct14.030139.14073@meteor.wisc.edu>
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:01:39 GMT
References: <1992Oct12.185533.6092@spss.com> <1992Oct12.220803.15594@news.media.mit.edu> <26864@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science
Lines: 68

In article <26864@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>Searle quite clearly has said that he thinks it is obvious that a
>digital computer could think, just that it couldn't do so solely by
>virtue of running a program.

OK, but this is nitpicking.

[representing Searle's position:]

>"`Ok, but could a digital computer think?'

>"If by "digital computer" we mean anything at all which has a level of
>description where it can be correctly described as the instantiation of
>a computer program, then again the answer is, of course, yes, since we
>are the instantiation of any number of computer programs and we can
>think.

>"`But could something think, understand, etc, _solely_ by virtue of
>being a computer with the right sort of program? Could instantiating a
>program, the right program of course, by itself be a sufficient
>condition of understanding?'

>"This I think is the right question to ask, though it is usually confused
>with one or more of the earlier questions, and the answer to it is "no".

Now, can a projectile interpret Postscript and produce hard copy? Sure,
if I throw my printer out the 15th floor window.  This is not a very 
interesting question about the nature of Postscript interpreters, or
projectiles for that matter.

Searle is only saying imho that given there are known entities that can both
think and can implement algorithms, i.e., us. That is a long way from claiming
that it is uncontroversial that a computer running suitable software will
certainly be conscious, which as I recall, you did.

To say that it is possible for a projectile to interpret Postscript is
much different than saying that a projectile, provided is it suitably hurled, 
can interpret Postscript, and that it is uncontroversial, as even Tobis has 
admitted that.

A mathematically precise interpretation of the latter statement is that it is
true, I suppose. A projectile, suitably hurled, can interpret Postscript,
PROVIDED IT IS A POSTSCRIPT INTERPRETER. To emphasize the business about
the style of hurling without bothering to mention the emphasized proviso
is to deliberately obscure the issue. It certainly offers no support for
theories about projectile motion being sufficient for printing, if only
the right trajectory could be found.

==========

In article <26609@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>In article <BARRY.92Oct6151915@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu> barry@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu (Barry Kort) writes:

>>Daniel Dennett ... saw no reason
>>why intelligence and consciousness could not reside in a sufficiently
>>powerful computer processor.

>I'm sure he intended the processor to be running suitable software :-)
>Given that rider, this is hardly controversial. Contrary to popular
>opinion, even Searle of Chinese Roon fame agrees with that, as he made
>plain in the Jan 1990 edition of Scientific American.

===========

mt

ps - I said I'd go away, didn't I? Oops.


