From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken Wed Dec 18 16:02:09 EST 1991
Article 2187 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: X-cell-ent minds are not the issue
Message-ID: <40748@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 17 Dec 91 13:07:40 GMT
References: <1991Dec14.110633.28844@oracorp.com> <60317@netnews.upenn.edu> <321@tdatirv.UUCP>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 11

In article <321@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <60317@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>|I don't quite think this is a fair analogy.  The point is: do we know
>|enough to conclude that when we eventually tie together all that is
>|right for neuropsychological explanation, we will get a result that
>|is Turing computable?
>
>I have never claimed 'Turing computable', only 'operationally computable'.

Could you define "operationally computable"?



