Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and consciousness
Message-ID: <D0ELLI.3GA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <3bgagb$4b4@mp.cs.niu.edu> <D0CsqL.9w@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <3bvu7b$i92@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 19:17:41 GMT
Lines: 54

In article <3bvu7b$i92@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In <D0CsqL.9w@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>In article <3bgagb$4b4@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
>>>>The OED gives two relevant definitions of the word 'program':
>>>
>>>>(Computer): A series of coded instructions which when fed into
>>>>            a computer will automatically direct its operation 
>>>>            in carrying out a specific task.
>
>>[...]
>
>>>All in all, I don't think that definition will do.  Or, to describe
>>>it differently, if that is the definition of program, then all of the
>>>sceptical arguments by Searle, Penrose, and others are surely valid.
>>>I have often said that these arguments are based on a limited view of
>>>what computing is.  Perhaps definitions like that of the OED are the
>>>source of the problem.
>
>>Humm.  I thought Searle had a suspiciously broad idea of what
>>counted as a computer, running a program, etc.  (E.g. his wall
>>running Wordstar, or whatever it was.)
>
>I think this is a confusion.  His view of a wall running Wordstar is
>surely wrong, because it does not account for why people run
>Wordstar.  That is, it does not get the I/O mapping right.

I don't say Searle's view is right, only that it doesn't seem
especially limited.

>>Can you say something more about where me may go wrong due to
>>a too limited view of what computing is?
>
>If you take too limited a view, you cut yourself off from
>conversation with others who use the term.  The whole point of
>language is for communication.  If we try to force meanings onto
>terms in a manner incompatible with normal usage of those terms, we
>interfere with normal communication.

Very true.  But Searle isn't saying what's in your example:

>For example, many people debate whether "cognition is computation."
>You could say:  "According to the OED, computation requires feeding a
>program into a computer.  [...]"

I'm interested in where you see Searle going wrong because he holds
too limited a view.

(BTW, I was just looking through some c.ai.phil archives and found
McDermott saying Searle's arguments would have been very different
if he'd ever taken a course in operating systems.  I haven't found
any elaboration or expansion of this remark, however.)

-- jeff
