From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!agate.berkeley.edu!matt Tue Nov 26 12:32:10 EST 1991
Article 1566 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:10593 sci.philosophy.tech:1099 comp.ai.philosophy:1566
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!agate.berkeley.edu!matt
>From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Philosophical Foibles of John McCarthy
Message-ID: <MATT.91Nov24204114@physics.berkeley.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 91 02:41:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: physics.MATT.91Nov24204114
References: <1991Nov15.003438.11323@grebyn.com> <1991Nov15.160741.5495@husc3.harvard.edu>
	<JMC.91Nov20144012@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1991Nov21.145350.5725@husc3.harvard.edu>
	<JMC.91Nov24203029@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 24 Nov 91 20:30:29

In article <JMC.91Nov24203029@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

> Finally, Zeleny, like his fellows considers the forty years of AI
> research to be completely unuccessful.  My opinion is that progress
> has been made in this difficult area.

I agree with Professor McCarthy.  I might add, furthermore: the
successes (or lack thereof) in AI research have nothing at all to do
with whether or not we believe the arguments of the anti-AI
philosophers.

AI researchers, after all, are (crudely speaking) trying to design
machines which simulate human thought.  The anti-AI philosophers,
however, are arguing that even if a machine which simulates thought
existed, it wouldn't *really* think.

It is possible to believe that AI will be (or has been) very
successful, and simultaneiously to believe Searle's arguments.  For
that matter, it is possible to find Searle's arguments unconvincing,
but also to think that simulating human thought is such an extremely
difficult task that whether or not it is possible in principle, it
will not be achieved in the forseeable future.
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(415) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.


