Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!satisfied.elf.com!news.mathworks.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!insosf1.infonet.net!internet.spss.com!markrose
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: What's innate? (Was Re: Artificial Neural Networks and Cognition
Message-ID: <D3pFrv.DAp@spss.com>
Sender: news@spss.com
Organization: SPSS Inc
References: <3g673d$7pl@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3h86l7$94r@agate.berkeley.edu> <D3nJ8n.5rv@spss.com> <jqbD3pCI6.Cu4@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 23:26:18 GMT
Lines: 28

In article <jqbD3pCI6.Cu4@netcom.com>, Jim Balter <jqb@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <D3nJ8n.5rv@spss.com>, Mark Rosenfelder <markrose@spss.com> wrote:
>> <jerrybro@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>Meanwhile, human language does
>>>not seem to be the sort of thing that a computer can really
>>>learn, until the day when it becomes far more powerful than it is today.  
>>
>>No problems here, except that the statement that "human language does not
>>seem to be the sort of thing that a computer can really learn [now]"
>>would presumably surprise AI supporters, since it's basically a denial
>>of "strong AI".
>
>I don't understand.  "strong AI" is a matter of principle; how can a matter
>of practice (whether computers are powerful enough today) be relevant to it?

Right: strong AI implies that algorithms, not computers, are intelligent, and 
that an intelligent algorithm could be run on any machine equivalent to a TM
(tho' some, such as an Apple II-- sorry, ][-- or Searle sitting in a room, 
might do it very, very slowly).  jerrybro's statement seemed to imply that 
some fact about the hardware would make present-day computers unable to run 
an intelligent algorithm; but that contradicts the hardware-irrelevance of 
strong AI.

There's a loophole, of course: TMs have to have an infinite tape, and 
jerrybro may be opining that an intelligent algorithm would require more
disk storage than any present-day computer could scrounge up.  Possible, but
rather boring. :)  It'd be more fun if he did mean that something about 
present-day architectures or hardware precluded intelligent algorithms.
