From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!wupost!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Thu Apr 16 11:34:15 EDT 1992
Article 5067 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!wupost!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Systems Reply I (repost perhaps)
Keywords: AI Searle Dickhead Barf
Message-ID: <523@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:10:14 GMT
References: <1992Mar29.083336.6608@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <6589@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 33

In article <6589@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
|
|No, but if we have good reasons to conclude that it can't
|be duplicated by a computer, we still have these good reasons
|even if we can't say how it's done in humans.

But such reasons can only be good if they can be shown definitively *not*
to apply to the human brain.  So far no set of arguments against implementing
a brain in digital circuits has been such as to preclude its applicability
to humans as well.

|Unless you are willing to accept this point, there is no
|point in continuing to discuss these matters with me,
|because I am never going to agree that showing how it's
|done in humans is necessary.

It is because it is the only way of showing that the reasons you have advanced
do *not* apply to humans.

|Several people have offered reasons why it cannot be.
|They may be wrong, but they're not wrong just because
|they haven't said how humans do it.  Address their
|arguments rather than demanding they they do things
|that are unnecessary!

But since everything I have heard them say is eqally applicable to neural
processing, I do not see how they can make the conclusions they do.

This is why I demand research into actual mechanisms.

-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)


