Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!news.kei.com!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!adavis
From: adavis@cs.buffalo.edu (Alexander Davis)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <D0CM67.A0t@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Sender: nntp@acsu.buffalo.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: hydra.cs.buffalo.edu
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Computer Science
References: <JMC.94Nov22011226@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il> <D00uxJ.8o2@cwi.nl> <jqbD02yo1.35B@netcom.com> <786566258snz@michaels.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:34:54 GMT
Lines: 20
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97175 comp.ai.philosophy:23163 sci.philosophy.meta:15308

In article <786566258snz@michaels.demon.co.uk>,
Rodney York <books@michaels.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>digital computer) if we add the implied argument (am I wrong to add this?):
>
>    "as we can't make a system that does just what the brain does, nor will
>    "we ever be able to, then the brain can't be a digital computer
>
> ...
>
>Rodney York

Yes, you are wrong to add this. Searle explicitly does not deny any possibility
of future accomplishments except those consisting of modeling the brain as 
a digital computer. This particular denial arises as a result of other
conclusions, not as a justification for them.


