Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!crcnis3.unl.edu!news.mid.net!news.mci.net!news.cic.net!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gatech!swrinde!pipex!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and consciousness
Message-ID: <D0CsqL.9w@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: <499572533wnr@luptonpj.demon.co.uk> <625187462wnr@luptonpj.demon.co.uk> <3bgagb$4b4@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 19:56:44 GMT
Lines: 25

In article <3bgagb$4b4@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>>The OED gives two relevant definitions of the word 'program':
>
>>(Computer): A series of coded instructions which when fed into
>>            a computer will automatically direct its operation 
>>            in carrying out a specific task.

[...]

>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.  Perhaps definitions like that of the OED are the
>source of the problem.

Humm.  I thought Searle had a suspiciously broad idea of what
counted as a computer, running a program, etc.  (E.g. his wall
running Wordstar, or whatever it was.)

Can you say something more about where me may go wrong due to
a too limited view of what computing is?

-- jeff
