Article View: comp.ai
Article #8490Re: Can Machines Think?
From: martin.b.brilliant
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1989 16:57
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1989 16:57
28 lines
1506 bytes
1506 bytes
From article <31821@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, by dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)... Slightly edited to make the bones barer: 1. Systems with an appropriate causal structure think. 2. Programs are a way of formally specifying causal structures. 3. Physical systems implement programs. 4. Physical systems which implement the appropriate program think. I take it that (1) is an acceptable definition. Does anybody think it begs the question? The weakest link here may be (2), the supposition that programs can implement any causal structure whatever, even those that do what we call thinking. The software/hardware duality question is semantically resolved by (3). The conclusion is (4), which seems to assert "strong AI." M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!hounx!marty1 or marty1@hounx.ATT.COM After retirement on 12/30/89 use att!althea!marty or marty@althea.UUCP Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<6724@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!rutgers!att!cbnewsh!mbbReferences:
<31821@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!rutgers!att!cbnewsh!mbb From: mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Can Machines Think? Message-ID: <6724@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> Date: 19 Dec 89 16:57:30 GMT References: <31821@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 28