From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Sun Dec  1 13:06:37 EST 1991
Article 1750 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!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Dennett on Edelman--what a total loss
Message-ID: <5757@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 29 Nov 91 17:30:23 GMT
References: <5734@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1991Nov28.051621.24327@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <5743@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1991Nov29.040039.19327@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 32

In article <1991Nov29.040039.19327@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>In article <5743@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>>>>>claim that "the brain is a Turing machine" (a claim that I note has
>>>>>been bandied about a number of times in this newsgroup, almost always
>>>>>by anti-AI proponents looking for straw figures). 
>>>>
>>>>Really, I thought they were arguing that artificial intelligences
>>>>on computers (_not_ brains) were FSAs (_not_ Turing Machines).
>>>
>>>The quantifier was existential, not universal.
>>
>>So?
>
>So you can't refute an existentially quantified statement ("has been
>bandied about a number of times") by pointing to the existence of
>other discussions.

The "they" in my sentence was refering to "anti-AI proponents".
I also disagreed about the "almost always".  So far as I can
recall, claims in the vicinity of "the brain is a TM" were almost
made by pro-AI folks, contrary to the impression you gave.

>>Moreover, it seems to
>>be the pro-AI side that is claiming all of the necessary properties
>>of brains can be captured by TMs.
>
>Indeed.  I agree with this claim myself.  But it this is a very
>different claim from the claim that "the brain is a Turing Machine".

Actually, it's pretty similar.  No one claims the brain is
literally a TM, that it has a tape for example.


