Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!milton!forbis
From: forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: No more Chinese rooms, please?
Message-ID: <4490@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 27 Jun 90 05:15:56 GMT
References: <25445@cs.yale.edu> <1990Jun26.140923.22895@cs.umn.edu> <25457@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 33

In article <25457@cs.yale.edu> blenko-tom@CS.YALE.EDU (Tom Blenko) writes:
>Consider
>again the artificial city, and suppose that someone does succeed in
>constructing such a thing.  So the artificial city replicates
>externally, as closely as anyone can tell, just the behaviors that a
>real city would.

I'm not sure you believe this.  I am pretty sure you do not.  Please
look again at your quote which follows.

>Now, the question is, does the artificial city have "civic pride"?  But
>the architects of the artificial city are only concerned with inputs
>and outputs, and when they deliver the desired transfer function, they
>suppose, using your view, that they are finished.  So there's no reason
>for anyone to suppose that it's meaningful to talk about the civic
>pride of an artificial city.

It does not make sense to say a city has been replicated then say it
has not.  If an observer can tell the difference between the real and
the artificial then as far as this city goes it has failed the Turing
Test.  If the architects are concerned with making the replica indestinguish-
able from the real then if civic pride is important it must be replicated.

>
>Searle takes consciousness
>and emotional states to be properties of the mind.  His claim (indeed
>his solution to the mind-body problem) is that these intentional
>properties are identically the states of the underlying processor...

Is Searle really a functionalist?  I don't understand how he could be
and still dispute the claims of Strong AI.

--gary forbis@milton.u.washington.edu