From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!blenko-tom Tue Nov 26 12:31:59 EST 1991
Article 1548 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!blenko-tom
>From: blenko-tom@CS.YALE.EDU (Tom Blenko)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: A Behaviorist Approach to AI Philosophy
Message-ID: <1991Nov24.194320.21232@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 24 Nov 91 19:43:20 GMT
References: <YAMAUCHI.91Nov24030039@magenta.cs.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News)
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 21
Nntp-Posting-Host: morphism.systemsz.cs.yale.edu

In article <YAMAUCHI.91Nov24030039@magenta.cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|Suppose AI researchers could build a robot that was indistinguishable
|from a human being in every way -- sensorimotor behavior, language
|abilities, learning and reasoning powers, even physical appearance.
|Would you argue that this robot is incapable of consciousness simply
|because it was the product of human engineering rather than mutation
|and natural selection?
|
|If so, why?
|
|If not, then it seems that any proof of the impossibility of "strong
|AI" (broadly defined) requires a convincing argument why it is
|impossible in theory to build such an anthropomorphic robot.

If you read Searle you will discover that he originally leaned toward
this view of intelligence, and then you will discover why it is that he
(quite some time ago) abandoned it.

So that is one source for such an argument.

	Tom


