Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: definitions of `Strong AI'
Message-ID: <CzFv2D.Aut@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <3a2pg3$7gh@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk> <HPM.94Nov13000910@cart.frc.ri.cmu.edu> <3acgoq$381@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 01:06:13 GMT
Lines: 18

In article <3acgoq$381@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk> A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman) writes:

>b. If on the other hand the static representation is merely the trace of
>only ONE execution of the alleged algorithm for intelligence, then you
>could not have any conversation with it. [...]

>Now my guess is that Hans would agree with me that there's no
>conversation in case (b).
>
>But perhaps he wouldn't. In that case, he's a concrete example of a
>person defending a type of strong AI thesis that Penrose and Searle
>thought they had to attack, and which I thought no serious AI
>researcher would ever really wish to defend!

I find that I don't understand this.  I'm not sure that the
b thesis is, but from the description it doesn't look like
what Searle and Penrose wre attacking to me.

