Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and consciousness
Message-ID: <D0K5u2.CMA@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: <3bvu7b$i92@mp.cs.niu.edu> <D0ELLI.3GA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <3c2ka0$9qj@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 19:22:50 GMT
Lines: 25

In article <3c2ka0$9qj@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In <D0ELLI.3GA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:

>>I'm interested in where you see Searle going wrong because he holds
>>too limited a view.
>
>You are putting words in my mouth.  In the case of Searle's comments
>on walls and Wordstar programs, his view was not too narrow -- it was
>too broad.  The effect is the same.  By using words in ways
>incompatible with normal usage, you cut off communication.

I did not intend to put words in your mouth.  I had in mind such
things as this:

>>>>>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.

It was my assumption that you wouldn't say Searle's arguments
were based on a limited view unless you thought Searle had a limited
view.

-- jeff
