Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!hilbert.dnai.com!nic.scruz.net!earth.armory.com!rstevew
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: Minsky's new article
Organization: The Armory
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 14:44:33 GMT
Message-ID: <Cz7nM9.LBo@armory.com>
References: <CyyGMH.7sL@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <39ofpu$em6@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deepthought.armory.com
Lines: 20

In article <39ofpu$em6@ra.nrl.navy.mil>,
Richard Pitre <pitre@n5160d.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>Questions and opinions involving  words like  
>"life,brain,mind,thought,consciousness,soul etc." are probably not too useful  
>because you can't get a significant number of people to agree on a meaning or a  
>response. Questions about the buildability of machines that can perform tasks  
>whose specification is unambiguous as agreed upon by 12 anal engineers are  
>another matter. It is nice to have machines which can make productive use of  
>situations whose relevant details are substantially controlled by complex  
>interrelationships. Whether this ability has anything to do with the  
>unspecified meaning of magic words or even with the use of something as well  
>defined as formal language and deduction is another matter entirely. 
>
>It should be taken to heart that the profession which takes the use of language  
>and argument most seriously is the legal profession.

-----------------------------
That really WAS worth mentioning! Thanks!
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com

