From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Tue Mar 24 09:55:48 EST 1992
Article 4463 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar15.055438.25543@oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 05:54:38 GMT
Lines: 36

Daryl McCullough:

  Right off the bat, Searle gets it wrong: no AI proponent believes that
  a computer (however programmed) is a mind.

Michael Gemar:

  This is contrary to everything that *I* have heard or read, and is
  certainly opposed to the general tenor of discussion in this group.
  Any AI types care to comment?

Antun Zirdum:

  The computer can never be a mind, or even a mind
  simulation, the computer can be a brain simulation
  and it can HAVE a mind!

  Clear (as mud?)

Michael Gemar:

  Yes, and it has *always* been clear to me.  I apologize if my comments
  weren't phrased appropriately.

  Now, what difference does this make to the discussion at hand?

Antun is simply restating what I said in my original post (or what I
meant to say, anyway): a computer is not a mind, (although it may
possess a mind). You were the one who asked whether people agreed with
me, so I don't understand why you are acting as if Antun's comments
are irrelevant.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY



