From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!pindor Tue Mar 24 09:56:22 EST 1992
Article 4511 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Infinite Minds?
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.181431.20297@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Mar11.214547.28524@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1992Mar16.165050.4693@cs.ucf.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 18:14:31 GMT

In article <1992Mar16.165050.4693@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>I am from the school that  we don't really understand something until we can  
>build it (maybe not even then).  When speech recognition and machine vision  
>reach human (animal even) levels of competence using purely digital techniques,  
>then I will accede that there is no need for invoking quantum physics (or  
>Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields, or the soul or ...) to explain the  
>functioning of the brain. 
> 
>Until that day comes, it remains a _philosophical_ possiblity that the brain  
>does not function digitally.  The digital functioning model is the most recent  
>round in a debate that starts with the Greeks.  While its successes are  
>suggestive, the model is not universally accepted, and many grow tired of  
>waiting for conclusive evidence against its competitors.
>
Is the evicence for the competitors anywhere near the evidence suggesting 
the digital functioning model? Growing tired is no justification for jumping to
wild conclusions. Or at least for taking wild conclusions seriously without
a sound evidence.
>


-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


