From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!spssig!markrose Mon Dec 16 11:01:30 EST 1991
Article 2079 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!spssig!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Searle, again
Message-ID: <1991Dec13.011007.30165@spss.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1991 01:10:07 GMT
References: <4dFul6O00Uh7A37HQ7@andrew.cmu.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs20.spss.com
Organization: SPSS, Inc.
Lines: 25

In article <4dFul6O00Uh7A37HQ7@andrew.cmu.edu> fb0m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Franklin Boyle) writes:
>There are two reasons algorithms, as manipulations of symbols, do not
>refer to objects or states of affairs in the world: the first is that
>the symbols physically do not in any way resemble the things to which 
>we hold them to refer.  

How do you think our brains refer to things?  Do you think your conception
of the word "cat" is a little bundle of neurons in the shape of a cat,
or what?  

>The second is that even if they did resemble
>the structures of external objects, the physical process of pattern 
>matching does not transmit physical structure, hence, inputs to the
>system (say from a camera) can only *trigger* further processing.  That
>is, the matcher, because it structurally couples to the incoming pattern
>can only output a signal that further change should occur.  But this signal
>carries no structural information about the input -- it is merely a voltage
>change.  Of course, you could set up the system so that the signal triggers 

Again, what do you think the nerves from the eye transmit?  How do the
nerve impulses transmit "structural information"?  What makes you think
(say) a digitizer doesn't do the same?

You must explain why your objection to the robot does not apply equally
to the brain.


