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 Thu Dec 26 23:56:55 EST 1991
Article 2254 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: Searle's response to silicon brain?
Message-ID: <40858@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 91 19:47:42 GMT
References: <40822@dime.cs.umass.edu> <40825@dime.cs.umass.edu> <356@idtg.UUCP>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 42

In article <356@idtg.UUCP> dow@idtg.UUCP (Keith Dow) writes:
>In article <40825@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>In article <40822@dime.cs.umass.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:
>>>Can anyone tell me if Searle has reacted to the counter-
>>>Gedanken experiment of replacing each neuron in a brain
>>>with a silicon, digital, neuron simulator?  As I understand
>>>his position, he would have to maintain that such a modified
>>>human does not understand what they utter, even though their
>>>performance is no different from a normal human.
>>
>>What is it with the hatred of science expressed by so many of you AI types?
>>There is no evidence to suggest that silicon digital neuron simulators can
>>mimic real neurons or that mind is no more than than the product of
>>some quantity of digital computation. One might as well ask whether 
>>Einstein ever reacted to the counter-relativity experiment of sending 
>>Tom Swift's rocket backwards through a black-hole. 
>
>
>
>
>There you go with your dogma again.  There are tons of research papers that
>support the idea that the brain can be simulated in part, if not in whole
>using digital computers.  Where have you been?  

The "counter-experiment" is of no value unless the performance of the
silicon neurons is identical to that of real neurons. But, this is the
point at issue. Dogma consists of assuming one's conclusion, and thus, 
your position deserves the appelation more than mine. Do you folks belong
to some religious cult of the machine or something?  I mean I don't want
to offend un-necessarily by interjecting scientific skepticism into
matters of faith.


>Get the classic series of books "Parallel Distributed Processing:
>Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition" by Rumelhart and
>McClelland.  This will give you a good start on your homework so that
>the next time you post, you will know what you are talking about.

I've looked at these, and have not been illuminated. Possibly a personal
failing.




