From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Thu Apr 16 11:33:19 EDT 1992
Article 4972 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: SHRDLU's mind
Message-ID: <1992Apr8.073244.29543@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:32:44 GMT
References: <1992Apr6.182533.109@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Apr7.002306.9823@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Apr7.211654.7694@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 42

In article <1992Apr7.211654.7694@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.002306.9823@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr6.182533.109@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>>>
>>>Varying degrees of sophistication have no bearing on the question of
>>>presence or absense.  A small mind is still a mind, just as a small ball
>>>is still a ball.
>>
>>And a small giant is still a giant, etc.  Is a small large X still an
>>X?  Yes, I suppose, if all X's are Y's (for all X and Y), which
>>appears to be the thesis here.
>>
>I'm not sure what bearing your use of contrary relational terms has on
>this discussion. Are you attempting to cast doubt on the (analytic,
>as far as I can tell) assertion that a small ball is still a ball. The
>problem with analogizing "mind" to terms like "giant" and "big" is that 
>"mind" has no such obvious relational connotations. If you think it
>does (i.e., if you think there was a point to your apparent non-sequiter)
>please make them explicit.
>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
>Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
>University of Toronto
>---------------------


Here you are mistaken. There are such things as small minds
and big minds. Would you not agree that small animals have
small minds, insects have even smaller minds. The problem
you are having is that you want to be able to limit the
size of a mind (quantize mind?) this cannot be done without
introducing a whole bunch of other problems, such as what is
the smallest mind, etc..
-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


