Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uicadb.csl.uiuc.edu!page
From: page@uicadb.csl.uiuc.edu (Ward Page)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Hayes vs. Searle
Message-ID: <1990Jun9.154316.29020@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 9 Jun 90 15:43:16 GMT
References: <16875@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2629@skye.ed.ac.uk> <13772@venera.isi.edu> <2703@skye.ed.ac.uk> <4550@castle.ed.ac.uk> <3204@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Reply-To: page@ferrari.ece.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Ward Page)
Organization: Visual Perception Laboratory, Univ of IL
Lines: 29

In article <3204@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin) writes:
>According to Searly in the Chinese Room paper, the difference is that
>human brain tissue has some "magical" (my word) quality that provides for
>intelligence/understanding/causitive powers, while mere silicon doesn't.
>He states that just what this quality is and how it works is a matter for
>empirical study.  Neat way to sidestep the issue, no?
>
>It seems to me that this is the real point of his paper - brain mass is
>different from silicon mass in some fundamental way.  There's some
>molecular/atomic/?? quality or structure that makes brain mass causitive 
>and silicon not.  He may not have intended this, but thats what it comes
>down to, and it seems patently silly.  There was no evidence for this when
>he wrote his paper, and there still isn't.

You're right.  I believe that this is at the heart of his argument.  There
is an interesting thought experiment in Moravecs 'Mind Children' that
talks about this.  The argument goes this way: If an artificial neuron were
developed that exactly mimics (functionally) a brain cell and you replaced
one neuron in the brain with this artificial neuron, would you still be
capable of thought?  If the answer is yes, how many neurons could you replace
before you are incapable of thought?  At the heart of this thought experiment
is the ability to exactly mimic a neuron.  Searle would have to reject this
to refute the argument (assuming the artificial neuron is made of different
stuff than the real neuron).


Ward Page
Visual Perception Lab
University of Illinois