From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!garrot.DMI.USherb.CA!uxa.ecn.bgu.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Mar 24 09:56:03 EST 1992
Article 4484 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!garrot.DMI.USherb.CA!uxa.ecn.bgu.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.004658.29591@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 92 00:46:58 GMT
References: <1992Mar14.182737.15329@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Mar14.213045.21776@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Mar16.224423.29809@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 19

In article <1992Mar16.224423.29809@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>In article <1992Mar14.213045.21776@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>
>>	There can be no final convincing proof that strong AI is
>>	possible until there is an actual implementation.
>
>No.  This is wrong.  An implementation will *not* demonstrate that it has
>semantics (or understanding, or qualia, or whatever).  This is *not* a
>matter of empirical investigation, but of conceptual analysis. 

  Aha!  That explains everything.  Now that I realize you do not understand
the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition, the
source of your confusion is suddenly apparent :-).

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940


